Viking_Yearbook_91

Photo by Dan Martin above: Barbara Workman, a member of Citizen s A gainst Measure 5, discusses the campaign. • News/Budget Cuts Tax limitation measure hits PSU, programs cut C lose Portland State University's School of Health and Human Performance, combine the School of Fine and Performing Arts with the College of Arts and Sciences, combine the Graduate School of Social Work with the School of Urban and Pub– lic Affairs. The passage of a property tax limitation ini– tiative, Ballot Measure 5, became the focus of PSU's winter and spring planning sessions as the university along with the other state, county and local governments scrambled to reduce their budgets to survive the measure's impact. Measure S,an Oregon constitutional amend– ment passed Nov. 6, 1990, limits property taxes for local government operations to $10 per $1,000 of assessed property value in 1991-92. Furthermore, property taxes for primary and sec– ondary education would slowly decline from $15 in 1991-92 to a permanent level of $5 per $1,000 by 1995-96. The state would be obligated to make up the difference for the state educational system. Disillusionment with escalating property tax is nothing new to Oregonians. Oregon voters have defeated 19 tax- and school-reform mea– sures since 1968. This, coupled with the legisla– ture's inability to adopt a workable school-fund– ing proposal that could be sold to the people of Oregon, is held largely responsible for the pas– sage of Measure 5. The lines of battle were drawn at a very early stage in the political process. The "yes" faction was led by chief bill sponsor Don Mcintire, a Gresham health club owner. Mcintire is a disci- ple of the 1970 property tax limitation pioneer, Ray Phillips. Phillips was the father of many of the past tax limitation proposals placed before Oregon voters. Mcintire held firm throughout, steadfastly encountering heavy opposition throughout the campaign. On the other hand was the "no" faction, a vocal demonstrative group to say the least. Their numbers included virtually every public official in the state. They opposed the measure with a vengeance, bewailing the possibility of very dan– gerous cuts that would have to be faced if the measure indeed passed. But the measure passed with 52 percent of the vote, and governmental bodies began look– ing for budget cuts and other funding sources. In higher education, a combination of in– creased tuition and budget cuts were proposed. • A 6.7 percent increase in tuition was al– ready slated for both 1991-92 and 1992-93, adding $47 million to the state's coffers. But with Ballot Measure 5, an additional $200 surcharge to be levied on students also was proposed. • A hiring freeze was inacted in December, leaving some programs with gaping holes in their teaching faculty that could not be filled . Layoffs of as many as 500 in the higher education system have been predicted. • Even closures of entire colleges have been proposed. To make the cuts made necessary by Measure 5, four state colleges would have to be closed: Eastern Oregon State College, Western Oregon State College, Oregon Institute ofTech– nology and Southern Oregon State College. • • • Tony Ruzicka