📧 “SB1057 Public Hearing”

Oregon resident:

I feel naive asking this, but is that how it works in the legislature? If the chair doesn’t like the requestor of a bill, they can just shut it down? Like a whole group of people who are committing suicide in droves don’t get a chance at civil rights because the person in power had an interpersonal tiff with the requestor? It’s mind-boggling to me.

I appreciate your candor and I’ll plan to stop by your office when I’m at the Capitol in May. I wonder if this bill can be re-introduced next session. I’ve got a group of people in my community who are interested and would benefit from it.

Thanks again,

[redacted]

Oregon lawmaker:

Just so you know, I did ask for a hearing. In fact, I chose to get this bill drafted as one of my five priority bills. I believe the main reason it was not scheduled for a hearing, the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, is because of the reported disrespect the requestor of the bill showed to a staff member of the chair. It was also stated by the chair that this bill is not needed.

Would I have liked to have had a hearing on one of my five priority bills? Of course. When the requestor of the bill seems to sabotage the bill through his actions toward staff and members of the legislature in both chambers and from both sides of the aisle, it is less than helpful to move the ball forward. I was able to get co-sponsors of this bill in spite of his actions and earned reputation, but getting a hearing was a bridge too far after it was reported by the chair’s staff that he was confronted in a restaurant by the bill requestor with a video camera. I will state that the requestor of the bill has been nothing but reasonable in my presence. However, he has made it clear that he is not going to change his methods. Like I said, that’s unhelpful. Also unfortunate. I was hoping we could at least hear from people like you as by why the bill is needed. Sorry that couldn’t happen this session.