SHERIFF'S DEFIANCE OF WILL OF VOTERS FOSTERS APATHY

BOTH THE JUNE 13 Register-Guard editorial, "Keep voting deadline," and
state Rep. Jim Hill's June 20 response, "Make every vote count," expound
upon the vote-by-mail process. Neither comment addresses the very real
problem of dismal voter turnout.

Lane County's voter turnout percentage has been in the low 30s; fewer than
one in three voters even bothers to vote. This "why bother to vote"
syndrome is surely, in large part, because of voter disgust and outrage
over seeing our majority votes countermanded by elected leaders, as
occurred in mid-June in our own county.

This was the stunt pulled by Lane County Sheriff Jan Clements, aided and
abetted by county Commissioners Anna Morrison and Bobby Green, who worked
in closed-door meetings to circumvent the hard work of the Community
Corrections Committee.

The Public Safety Coordinating Council gave the CCC the task of
recommending disbursements of public money for a variety of public safety
programs. The CCC proposed a balanced plan that would have funded, at least
minimally, effective social service, crime prevention and intervention
programs, such as the very successful Drug Court. The lion's share of
public safety dollars would still be given to the Lane County Sheriff's
Office, a $42 million tab. The CCC allocated just $250,000 for the Drug Court.

Not satisfied with his $42 million budget, Clements then went after Drug
Court funding and got it. The Drug Court budget allocation was thus reduced
to just $125,000.

The end result. Significantly fewer addicts accepted into the program -
and, consequently, more addicts taking up much more costly jail beds.

During budget deliberations, Clements was asked to reduce his budget by
$660,000 and take a hard look at possibly cutting the more than $1 million
paid to deputies in overtime pay. A few months ago in Portland, an
investigation revealed the extent of police overtime abuses. I call for a
similar investigation in Lane County. An independent review is warranted
and essential.

Clements ignored the suggestion to look into that $1 million overtime tab,
opting instead to go after CCC allocations for the Drug Court - a program
that is proven to reduce recidivism through effective drug rehabilitation
work. An already bloated sheriff's office budget snagged vital dollars from
the Drug Court, a fiscally responsible and humane support agency.

Why should this trouble voters. During the campaigns for various tax
measures to spend millions more of our tax dollars for even more jail beds
and deputies, the drumbeat cadence from voters throughout the county was
"enough is enough." Many voters are aware of national studies indicating
that for every $1 spent on programs like the Drug Court, $7 in jail beds
and jail staff costs were saved. All recent public safety measures,
rejected by voters time and again, dismally short-shrifted the programs
that actually work. For every $231 these public safety measures designated
for more police and more jail beds, only $1 was earmarked for helping
at-risk youths, funding the Drug Court and other effective social service
support agencies.

It was not surprising that these measures failed, big time - one went down
by nearly 75 percent. From fiscal conservatives to social liberals, people
made clear their objections, knowing that it's futile and wasteful to
shovel more money (above and beyond that $42 million eaten up each year by
the sheriff's office) when it's clearly not working. Jail and court
recidivism, the revolving door of repeat offenders, is at an all-time high.
Others recognized that the priorities were badly skewed.

Yet our county sheriff, who repeatedly failed to persuade voters to dig
even deeper to expand his domain, chose to go after Drug Court funds. This
is exactly the opposite of the will of the electorate. The county's own
survey also underscored the voters' intent. Only 17 percent of respondents
prefer more jails and more deputies as a way to "improve public safety."
However, 67 percent preferred more focus on the programs that actually do
reduce crime (prevention, intervention and drug rehabilitation), thus
reducing the financial burdens on taxpayers.

Commissioner Peter Sorenson, in tune with the will of the electorate, was
the only commissioner who tried to protect the CCC proposal. The
reprehensibly irresponsible votes cast by the other four commissioners
represent public malfeasance at its worst. An accounting is due.

As Drug Court Judge Darryl Larson put it, "Jail is just like a timeout for
3-year-olds." People who go into jail addicted to drugs are released
addicted to drugs. Without effective rehabilitation programs, they'll be
back through courts and jails and, guaranteed, there will be more measures
asking taxpayers to pick up the tab.

In frustration and outrage, it may be tempting to refuse to participate in
expensive, taxpayer-funded elections and surveys when the results are
ignored. But let us not be discouraged about voting itself. We can vote
officials out of office for not respecting or upholding the will of the
people. When we vote out of office those who trample on the will of the
people, that's a vote that will be upheld - and no amount of back-room
maneuvers will undo it.

When that time comes, vote. Right now, let's send a few dollars to the Drug
Court. It's a proactive step we can all take to undo a great wrong, to
restore funds cut from a program that does so much with so little. Real
people, and the subsequent well-being of our community, are at stake.