Issues
Gun Control – a Surprisingly Complex Issue
By Suzanne Penegor
Gun control is a debate that is bipartisan in the sense that there are Democrats and Republicans who care about the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms. The National Rifle Association includes women and men of all ages and all political persuasions. It is a constitutional right we don’t take lightly.
So when recent mass shootings bring the subject up again, once more we are asked to give up our right to bear arms to protect ourselves from criminals or maybe from a tyrannical government.
The gun control debate has caused a boom in gun sales as Americans are concerned about Federal legislation that the Obama Administration is considering to restrict gun ownership. While the discussion of whether to again ban the sale of assault weapons will or will not make our country safer rages, we should also take a less simplistic look at why there are so many mass shootings.
Taking a broader look might include these questions: could there be economic factors related to the poor economy behind the shootings? Should we be looking at restoring funding for public mental health facilities? In our area we are still waiting for the Junction City mental health facility to open and, besides providing treatment, create local jobs in a tough economy. The addition of this facility would address both the mental health and economic issues noted above.
Thanks to cuts in public safety spending and early release of jailed criminals, county sheriffs are telling rural residents they may not be able to respond in a timely manner if they are victims of crimes. In response to this women are seeking concealed weapons permits.
Criminals will always get illegal guns. The young man who went on the rampage last year at the Clackamas Mall in Portland stole his gun from a friend. He did not go out and obtain it legally and he was not subjected to a legal background check.
Gun control, as it is often proposed, is a knee jerk reaction to a more complex problem. We should be looking at this bigger picture.
We should be entitled to defend ourselves as our forefathers intended when they created the Second Amendment – not only to protect ourselves against criminals in tough economic times, but also to protect our freedoms from a tyrannical government. We should have a Federal task force study the complex reasons that there have been more school shootings and mass shootings in the last 20 years. Blaming honest, law abiding gun owners won’t fix this important social problem.
Suzanne Penegor is an Oregon native, graduate of the U of O and a former local business owner
Springfield: Land of Opportunity
By Sean VanGordon
Springfield is a very practical city. We pride ourselves on our open for business and can-do attitudes. Former Mayor Sid Leiken called it “The Springfield Way”. However, Springfield still faces challenges and economic hardship. But, even as we confront a budget shortfall, the discussion around city hall is, fortunately, focused on what we can do as opposed to what we can’t. Because of our attitude and this focus, Springfield has significant opportunities in both economic development and innovation.
Springfield’s economic development program is centered around downtown, Glenwood, and Gateway districts. In 2012 Springfield supported economic development by renewing a public safety levy, which makes downtown as well as the wider city itself safer.
Downtown Development
The Sprout Food Hub, Planktown Brewery, and the Washburne Cafe are some of the businesses that have created a food culture in the city. Downtown has also seen the opening of a new charter school and numerous second-hand stores. Downtown’s success is a result of hard work that volunteers, businesses, non-profits, and the city have performed.
We are creating a downtown where you can enjoy eating and shopping. We now have an inviting downtown where it is safe to take your family to dinner or open a new business.
City-Wide Development
In addition, there has been significant progress in Glenwood. And the Gateway District continues to be the largest employment area in the city.
In sum, we continue to make city-wide progress in economic development.
Innovation – The Springfield Way
Springfield has a long history of innovation and creativity in city services.
As a mid-size city, we offer creative, innovative services that save taxpayers money and support healthy, growing businesses. For instance, the merger of the Springfield and Eugene Fire Departments was a good example of improving city services while saving money through innovation.
As a result of our creative thinking and dedication to improving services while zealously guarding taxpayers’ money, Springfield is now a finalist for the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge. Plus, it’s the smallest city in the final 20. The competition is for a five million dollar award to provide innovative services. Springfield’s entry was a proposal for a mobile health care program. By utilizing sophisticated technology, this program can lower the cost of emergency medical responses even as it relieves pressures on Lane County Ambulance Services, thus saving both tax dollars and taxpayers’ money.
Economic development and innovation are and will continue to be key areas of focus for Springfield.
Springfield continues to create both attractive business opportunities and an ever increasing quality of life for its citizens because we think creatively and work hard to convert our dreams to reality. Our vibrant community is focused on accomplishments and dedicated to improving every aspect of city life.
Sean VanGordon is a Springfield City Councilor representing Ward 1
Rep. Richardson: Rethinking education funding
Author: Christiana Mayer
By Taxpayer Association of Oregon Lawmaker Profile
Right now public education in the United States is behind such countries as Ireland, Estonia and Poland. It is clear that something needs to be done. Representative Dennis Richardson believes that local control over public education is a crucial part of reforming education and making sure that our children get the education that they need.
“Reform education by returning education control to the lowest level – The level closest to the student. And ensure that funding follows the student,” said Richardson.
Taxpayers are constantly told that in order to have a good public education system more money is needed for our schools. Several bills to reform the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) have been introduced in the current legislative session to find more money. Most school districts blame the escalating cost of PERS as one reason why they have had to trim budgets. Some of the ideas being talked about in the State Capitol are the PERS reform plan to limit the cost-of-living adjustments to the first $24,000 of a retiree’s benefits, which saves $400 million a year. Another PERS reform plan, to limit cost of living adjustments for higher end users, would save $225 million a year. Unfortunately Representative Richardson does not believe that meaningful PERS reform will pass this legislative session.
For example, there are two different state departments that are directly involved in public education. The Department of Education and the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission create a series of hoops and barriers for teachers according to Representative Richardson. It is a layer of bureaucracy that keeps dollars out of the classroom. Since Salem is always looking for ways to put money in the classroom perhaps the functions of these two departments could be combined.
Parents need to take a greater interest in the education of their children and that will help change the system. Citizens should run for school board positions and volunteer in the public schools to make sure that they understand how the system works.
Reprinted with permission from Oregon Catalyst
Dennis Richardson, of Central Point, represents District 4 in the Oregon Legislature.
Lane County Board of Commissioners Chair Sid Leiken comments on Governor Kitzhaber’s letter to the Federal Delegation regarding future management of the O and C lands of Western Oregon
I would like to express my thanks to Governor John Kitzhaber for convening a group of Oregon stakeholders to take on the exceedingly tough public policy issue of how to best manage the O and C lands of Western Oregon. He has clearly prioritized this issue. His willingness to put into writing his expectations for our Congressional leaders should be appreciated by all of Lane County’s citizens, especially given the huge amount of federal land that surrounds our communities.
His letter to the Oregon delegation of the United States Congress summarizing the work of his panel could not have come at a better time. Literally today, Lane County received its last check from the federal government with dollars that came as a result of the Secure Rural Schools Act, first passed into law in 2000 under the leadership of Senator Ron Wyden. Notably, that check held back $500,000 of O and C revenue due to an un-expected and un–appreciated maneuver by the Department of the Interior. These are the very dollars that Lane County would be able to use for critical public safety services and their elimination is precisely why the Board of County Commissioners has been discussing putting a modest property tax proposal in front of the voters of Lane County.
The Governor clearly understands the tough road ahead for our federal delegation. These lands are unique to western Oregon, and their fate lies in the hands of the entirety of the US Congress. With Senator Wyden’s historic advocacy for the communities of Western Oregon and the more recent and courageous bi-partisan plan created by House members DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader, Governor Kitzhaber’s recommendations provide a foundation that should quickly lead to collaboration amongst the entirety of the federal delegation. Speaking with one voice united between the House and the Senate is crucially important given the rancourous nature of the current political environment in Washington DC.
It remains my belief that a way forward can only be charted if there is a sense of shared responses from local, state, and federal partners. Governor Kitzhaber states “Oregon state and local governments should share in the responsibility to fill any gap which may remain between timber revenues and the funding level required to keep counties fiscally viable.” I know that both the Governor and our delegation are aware that Lane County is contemplating a local money measure that would fund jail beds and youth services. Our residents also know that this new revenue will not cover the entirety of our public safety structure. I am willing to take the first step to place the shared response the Governor speaks to squarely on our shoulders. In doing so, I am confident that if we are successful there will be even more reason for the state and the federal government to act. Allowing some responsible degree of harvest to return to these forests is an absolute must.
Public safety and sentencing reform: Why overhaul a justice system that’s working?
By Michael D. Schrunk and Rod Underhill
Recently Gov. John Kitzhaber was forced to present a difficult budget proposal. Some members of the current Commission on Public Safety apparently feel this calls for a significant redesign of the criminal justice system, including “comprehensive sentencing reform.” Many members of the law enforcement community, however, are puzzled about the need to redesign one of the most progressive and successful systems in the nation.
Only a quarter of convicted felons in this state go to prison, compared with a national average of 40 percent, producing one of America’s lower incarceration rates. We nonetheless have been a national leader in the reduction of violent crime since the passage of mandatory sentencing for some violent crimes. Oregon was the first state whose laws require evidence-based practices for those on probation and parole. Prisons here have a lower percentage of property and drug offenders than in any other state. We have decided on a policy to reserve prison space for violent offenders while we attempt to help those who commit drug and property offenses turn their lives around. We have dramatically reduced our recidivism rate in the past five years. The list goes on.
Soon the Commission on Public Safety will report on sentencing reform, and the question remains: Why drastically overhaul one of the most successful justice systems in the country? The answer proposed by some is that current sentencing laws will produce “unsustainable” prison growth over the next 10 years — requiring more than 2,000 new prison beds. This is a questionable proposition.
First, prison population forecasting in this state has had an uneven history at best. Every 10-year forecast since 1995 has predicted greater prison growth than actually occurred, with some fully 47 percent high. These past overpredictions are invariably used by critics to advocate for wide-ranging changes in sentencing policy, as is being done now.
Second, none of the currently predicted prison growth is a result of mandatory sentences for violent crimes. Violent crime policy in this state has been so successful that the prison population of offenders serving mandatory sentences is stable.
Third, more than 60 percent of predicted prison growth in the next decade will simply result from state population growth. Additional public services required by population growth are inherently sustainable, because population growth produces proportionally increased tax revenue. Indeed, while the state economist predicts a 16 percent increase in prison beds in the next decade, he also predicts a 48 percent increase in state government revenues in that same period. This should provide a solution in itself.
We understand through experience the need to scrutinize government operations for savings. No one should believe, however, that cutting prison spending, which constitutes only 9 percent of general fund expenditures, can contribute much to other areas.
Indeed, the one negative in the overall bright picture in Oregon’s justice system has come when incarceration has been reduced in several counties. Here in Multnomah County, for example, more than 35 percent of jail beds have been cut since 2001, contributing, we believe, to Portland’s increasing property crime rate. Further, a recent look at county and emergency inmate releases reveals that about 75 percent of released inmates commit new offenses on release. That’s food for thought as we examine what we should do statewide.
That said, we also have ideas about how sentencing policy can be reformed safely to improve current practices. Law enforcement representation on the current commission has proposed comprehensive measures that would save money without sacrificing the integrity and effectiveness of a justice system produced in no small part by voter participation. We hope the commission will take these proposals seriously and not press forward unwisely based on questionable perceptions regarding public safety policy.
Michael D. Schrunk has been Multnomah County district attorney since 1981 and is retiring this month. Rod Underhill is Multnomah County district attorney-elect.
Reprinted with permission from Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance
Could Bigger PERS Payments Mean Fewer Teachers in Lane Co.?
Recently a highly placed official with Eugene 4J Public Schools spoke off the record with a member of Lane Solutions’ editorial staff. He revealed to us the cold, hard facts about the coming mandated increase in Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) payments and their effects on Eugene students.
During the coming biennium, mandated PERS payments by Eugene 4J will increase by 6.55%, or about $4,900,000 per year. By State law this, plus current PERS payments, must be made first. In other words, before 4J hires one more teacher, buys one new textbook, or makes one new computer available to our children, it must pay this additional amount into employee retirement.
So, what will this increase cost our children? Plenty. According to this official, a teacher costs 4J about $95,000 per year. Each one percent increase in PERS payments costs about $750,000 per year. So every one percent increase in PERS payments means that our children lose almost eight teachers!
The cost of a 6.55% PERS increase? The possible loss of nearly 52 teachers! The result – more kids per class and less education.
Should the PERS increase be covered by teacher layoffs, who will lose his or her job? Thanks to union rules seniority trumps teaching ability, performance and results. So the last hired become the first fired. This means that less expensive teachers are the first to go. A first year teacher costs about $32,000 less than a teacher with 20 years seniority, or about $63,000 per year. If all the layoffs come from this group, 4J will have to lay off 78 teachers!
In previous issues of Lane Solutions readers have learned how PERS rules and disputes concerning them are both made and adjudicated by the very State officials who profit from their own decisions, thus stacking the deck against taxpayers.
One result of this stacked deck is that PERS retirees are compensated for Oregon income taxes they must pay on their PERS income – even if they live elsewhere and therefore don’t pay Oregon income taxes. That’s right – a PERS retiree living in Delaware gets money from Oregon taxpayers for the Oregon income taxes he or she doesn’t pay!
The 4J official who revealed for our readers the true cost of PERS increases concluded the interview with some even more disturbing news: The increase in health insurance premiums is even larger than the PERS increase, and so may result in even more teacher layoffs. But more about that in a future issue of Lane Solutions.
Imagine a World…
By Steve Buckstein
Imagine a world where we buy our groceries in government stores. We can only shop at the store nearest our house. If we want to shop somewhere else, we’re forced to move our family into another neighborhood―if we can afford it.
In this imaginary world, we elect food boards to oversee our grocery stores. And many of us think the food is free. Well, not quite. We all pay taxes to the government, which then recycles those dollars to grocery store districts and eventually down to our neighborhood stores. We think we eat pretty well, although the government spends five dollars for a gallon of milk and six-fifty for a loaf of bread. The bread is often stale and the milk sour.
Each district has a central office staff of specialists and administrators who work hard designing store shelves, checkout lanes, and (most importantly) the nutritional content of every food item. Since we’re a nation that separates Church and State, the big battles at food board meetings often revolve around whether stores can sell Christmas cookies.
Now, imagine that voters decide to give the government less money for the public food system. Suddenly, food stores find themselves in a crisis. There isn’t enough tax money to keep food district central bureaucracies intact. Stores don’t have enough money to keep all the clerks employed. Food superintendents are faced with the difficult task of eliminating some items from the shelves.
How could we possibly feed ourselves without the government taxing us, building big brick food buildings, and telling us where to shop?
If this imaginary world―and its problems―sounds familiar, you’re way ahead of me. It’s the world of our public school system. It’s the world most of us grew up in. Our parents grew up in the same world, but children now are growing up in a different world.
We can no longer afford to dump more money into a system that isn’t keeping pace with the progress all around us. Technology has opened limitless ways for students to gain knowledge and skills and to interact with their instructors and peers. The landscape of educational options centered on the needs and aspirations of individual students is far more diverse than it was even ten years ago.
Many advocate that we should lead the world in education spending. But you don’t get to be the competitive leader in any industry by being the world’s highest-cost producer. Don’t you want to be the producer with the highest quality, but at an affordable cost? The driving force to achieve high quality, while keeping costs down, is the profit motive. But that’s exactly the motive that doesn’t exist in our public school system.
Why aren’t we worried about a tax revolt decimating our local grocery store shelves? It’s because our grocery stores are private. They’re subject to intense competition, and each of us has virtually unlimited choices about where we shop.
For those who can’t afford food, we don’t build government food stores. We give them food stamps, and they shop in the same stores and for the same products that everyone else does. In essence, our public schools are the equivalent of the former Soviet Union’s collective farms. Communism said government should own and run the food stores―and the farms. The result was a nation that couldn’t feed itself.
We don’t have to ask whether to replace our current public school system with a private one. We can simply let education dollars be spent where the customers (parents) think they should go.
Please don’t let the details of any specific “school choice” proposal stop you from accepting the concept. Instead, let’s figure out why so many of our tax dollars don’t reach the classroom―and why nearly half the people who work for our public school system don’t teach. Let’s look for ways to put the children first and the system second.
The only proven way to accomplish these things is through competition and parental choice. Spending more dollars in the current system will just get us more of the same. Many states are broke, preventing them from spending more money on public schools. And many parents are fed up, wondering why their kids are underperforming or unmotivated in K-12 schools and unprepared for their college courses and future careers.
School choice has entered a new world. Because Americans are increasingly vocal about providing parents at every income level with the ability to choose their children’s schools, states are adopting broad-based school choice initiatives.
Every child who drops out of school, or who graduates functionally illiterate, is being tossed into the sea without a lifeboat. If you think rearranging the deck chairs on this ship will save those children, think again. The way of the future is to put the power of educational choice back into the hands of parents, where it belongs.
Steve Buckstein is Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Reprinted with permission from Cascade Policy Institute
Stay Focused on Domestic Violence All Year
By Jay Bozievich
Domestic Violence Awareness Month recently ended, but our efforts to stop domestic violence and to end the silence should continue throughout the year. That is why I signed a Declaration of Support for the Lane Domestic Violence Council in October and pledge to end the silence.
It is also why the Board of Commissioners used $78,000 in car rental taxes to provide additional funds for the Human Services Commission, $50,000 specifically to prevent deep cuts to rural service providers like Siuslaw Outreach Services. Supporting organizations like Siuslaw Outreach Services and Womenspace financially or by volunteering are great ways of helping those fleeing abusive relationships and educating the public.
Unfortunately, our local economic conditions are not helping in the fight against domestic violence. Economic stress and domestic violence are interwoven and the economy of western Lane County has created a high degree of stress. The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunches in the rural and coastal school districts is far above the more urban districts. Siuslaw has 46.2% of students eligible, Lincoln County has 62.8%, Reedsport has 65.4%, Blachly has 67.5% and Mapleton has 71.2% of their students eligible! This compares to 36.5% eligible in Eugene School District 4j.
Efforts to escape domestic violence can also have devastating economic impacts. Leaving a relationship might mean losing a job, housing, health care, childcare, or access to a partner’s income. Economic hardship reduces options for someone leaving a bad relationship. A person escaping a violent relationship must be able to financially support themselves (sic) and their (sic) children after leaving an abusive partner. Short term housing and assistance are available from agencies like Siuslaw Outreach Services but these are often limited due to funding.
A Michigan study found that 63% of welfare recipients experienced physical abuse while the rate for the general public is closer to 20%. 51% of those Michigan welfare recipients experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes. In Oregon, approximately 80% of people requesting assistance from DHS Self Sufficiency list a history of domestic violence. Economic hardship does not cause domestic violence but economic pressure in homes that experience violence adds to it. It also limits the ability to leave a violent relationship.
A growing economy offers more opportunities to those trying to free themselves from domestic violence and that is why I support efforts to create economic opportunities in Lane County. That support includes projects that would upgrade our freight rail connections that will facilitate redevelopment of the abandoned and underutilized mill sites along the Siuslaw. I have supported efforts to improve Highway 126 that brings tourist and goods to coastal Lane County. In addition, I support efforts to return to active management of our federal forests under a sustained yield model such as proposed by Congressmen DeFazio.
It is also why I supported the Women in Transition program at Lane Community College while I was on the Board of Education. This program helps women access education, training, and employment to become more self-sufficient.
We can all do our part to aid the victims of domestic violence and to help prevent it by contributing to organizations like Siuslaw Outreach Services and other agencies that provide housing, food, legal and other assistance to people impacted by domestic violence as well as education for the public. If you do not have financial resources to help, consider volunteering your time.
One of the simplest things we can do is to recognize that domestic violence is still a problem and promise not to remain silent when you become aware of it. Encourage possible victims and/or abusers to get help. Have them contact Siuslaw Outreach services at 541-997-2816 or Womenspace’s 24-Hour Crisis Line at 541-485-6513 or 800-281-2800 toll free.
Together, we can make Domestic Violence Awareness Month last the entire year and help secure successful pathways out of violence.
Jay Bozievich is a Lane County Commissioner
Reprinted with permission from the Siuslaw News
Leiken: Lane County’s Crumbling Public Safety System
On Thursday, November 29, 2012, the Lane County Sheriff’s Office closed another 35 jail beds resulting in the release of more than 30 inmates from the Lane County Jail. By Friday afternoon two of the released inmates were already back – one arrested for robbing a bank and one for unlawful entry and theft.
The release of these inmates from the Lane County Jail is directly related to the significant reduction in federal funding and is indicative of the lack of active management of the federal forests that make up half our land base. I fully support Sheriff Turner and his dedicated staff during this challenging time. They are sworn to protect us, but have been confined by inadequate resources.
Many voices have called for Lane County to move beyond federal timber revenue sharing, yet we cannot ignore the economic potential of the forests amongst which we live. Lane County Commissioners, even this week, continue to debate the form and function of a property tax measure dedicated to supporting the jail. But to fully rebuild a functioning public safety system (jail, patrol, prosecution, youth services, and treatment and prevention) would take more than a doubling of Lane County’s existing property tax. Residents have never supported tax proposals of that size, and there is no reason to expect they will now even in spite of the dismantled state of our public safety system. A property tax increase at this time throws cold water on our fragile recovery and, under Measure 5, the only options available to voters are temporary solutions. What’s more, those options could actually impinge on the tax revenue of our community’s fire, school, city, and other taxing districts.
Lane County’s partnership with the federal government goes all the way back to 1906, when the first national forests were created and County Commissioners throughout the West lobbied Congress to create a mechanism that would replace tax revenue lost by creating enormous amounts of publicly owned lands. Congress has all but completely walked away from this promise. I thank Congressmen DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader, and Governor Kitzhaber for forcing a dialogue to find a way to ensure both the essential ecosystem and the crucial revenue that provides for the security of Lane County families.
What we’ve seen this week – what we’ve seen as our system has eroded over the last several years – is the result of the reduction of tens of millions of real dollars. It cannot be blamed on uncontrollable cost, bad management, or waste. No single, immediate solution will fix our system. We need a long term solution to a sustainable public safety system that lays out the incremental steps to get there. We are committed to identifying such a cohesive strategy.
Sid Leiken is Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners
PERS Members Both Write and Benefit From PERS Laws
Fewer than 9% of the 3,800,000 Oregonians are in Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). But PERS members have total control over PERS laws. No Oregon PERS law can be made or changed without their consent. It wasn’t always this way. When PERS was first created in 1945, PERS members did not control the process. They had to negotiate with state legislators, who at that time were not permitted to join PERS. As a result, both parties involved in PERS – the public employees and the people of Oregon – had independent representation when PERS laws were made.
That procedure remained in place through 1970, and so did PERS retirement benefits. For the first twenty-five years that PERS existed, a retired PERS member received a retirement benefit, after working a full career, of approximately 50% of his or her final average salary. One half of the retirement benefit was funded by the employee and the other half by the people of Oregon.
But in 1971 the Oregon Attorney General ruled that legislators could join PERS. Since then, most have signed up. And why wouldn’t they? Once in PERS, legislators had a personal financial incentive to increase PERS benefits. And that is just what they did. By 1981 they had dramatically increased PERS retirement benefits. During that period PERS legislators also created new benefits. One of these guaranteed that each year their employee PERS accounts would earn a minimum rate of return and that law allowed PERS members to decide what the guaranteed minimum return would be.
Another new law created the PERS Pick Up. The Pick Up gave PERS members two separate benefits. First, it gave them the right to shift the obligation to pay the employee PERS contributions from themselves to the people of Oregon. Second, it increased their employer funded pension by treating the amount picked up as salary in computing their final average salary, although it was not treated as salary for any other purpose.
Once they had substantially increased PERS benefits the PERS legislators made all elected judges PERS members, starting in 1984. For the first thirty-eight years that PERS existed, judges had their own independent retirement plan. That insured they would be impartial when deciding PERS lawsuits. Once judges became PERS members, however, they could not be impartial. Their personal retirement benefits would depend on their decisions.. By forcing judges into PERS, PERS legislators neatly stacked the deck in favor of PERS in every PERS lawsuit.
This move paid off handsomely for PERS members a few years later. In 1994 Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 8, which eliminated three benefits. In 1996 the PERS judges on the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated Ballot Measure 8 and reinstated those PERS benefits.
Today PERS funding is Oregon’s highest financial priority. But it was not elevated to that status by the people of Oregon. This priority was given to PERS funding by the very same PERS legislators who personally benefit from it. As long as legislators can join PERS, PERS members will control PERS laws.
So do not expect any changes to PERS. If you are concerned about this situation, ask your legislators if they are PERS member. Then tell them what you think about legislators making the PERS rules that benefit themselves.
Daniel C. Re
www.inrethepeople.wordpress.com
Daniel C. Re is an attorney practicing in Bend, Oregon