March 31, 2010
Editorial
Governor shouldn't veto recycling bill
Legislation is solid policy that benefits in several ways
Bottle and can recycling is ingrained in the Oregon culture, and an innovative bill passed by legislators last month would make the recycling even easier. Unfortunately, Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering vetoing the legislation, House Bill 3704.
It's among three bills for which he has issued a "notice of possible intent to veto." The other two deserve vetoes, given the circuitous route they traveled in the Legislature's February special session.
HB 3704, however, is solid public policy — good for consumers, good for the environment and good for businesses. It would create a statewide system for bottle and can recycling.
"This is the ultimate Bottle Bill nirvana," said state Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, a passionate advocate for the legislation.
The vision is to have scores of drive-thru redemption centers throughout Oregon, located in retail areas and other convenient locations. The advantage for grocers is that they no longer would need to devote so much staff and space to recycling. Consumers would benefit because they could drop off their recyclable containers, get an electronic credit for them, but not have to do the can-by-can or bottle-by-bottle sorting.
This system would both expand the recycling stream in Oregon and improve the purity of the products being accepted. In turn, recycling manufacturing plants would be more likely to locate in Oregon, because they would have sufficient volume of recycled materials for their production processes.
Currently, many recycled containers are shipped overseas for re-manufacturing — which seems ironic, given the "carbon footprint" created by that trans-ocean shipping.
It's noteworthy that this bill represents one of the few times that grocers and distributors have agreed on an expansion of Oregon's recycling efforts.
At least most of them agree, but not all. Some want to keep the current store-by-store system unchanged, despite its drawbacks.
One of Kulongoski's concerns is that the bill could violate antitrust laws. But as written, the legislation seems reasonable and thoughtful.
Along with being a misguided rebuke to Oregon's business community, a veto would slow efforts to expand recycling.
The other two bills definitely merit Kulongoski vetoes:
-Senate Bill 1014 was introduced by Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, to clean up disparities among state boards and commissions. It created uniform standards, trimmed eligibility for per diem payments and abolished dormant task forces.
Those are good steps, and the bill would deserve to become law if the Legislature had stuck with Courtney's original intent.
However, lawmakers added a provision to allow teachers and other educators to serve on the State Board of Education. That represents a fundamental change in state policy. That board was created as an outside, disinterested overseer of elementary, secondary and community college education in Oregon.
If that shift in policy is warranted — and we don't think it is — the concept deserves greater public scrutiny than it received during the monthlong special session.
-Senate Bill 1046 would create a task force to create standards, including training criteria, in case a future legislature decides to let psychologists prescribe medication. The goal would be to increase mentally ill Oregonians' access to medication.
Even some psychologists oppose the bill, recognizing that they have different training and different roles than psychiatrists and other physicians.
Oregonians need greater access to mental-health professionals and treatments. But this legislation is the wrong approach.
In the end, two of Kulongoski's potential vetoes make imminent sense. But the container recycling bill deserves his endorsement.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20100331/OPINION/3310432/1048
