Prospects for the 2024 “short session” of the Oregon Legislative Assembly were not auspicious. By law, the session is limited to 35 days. Just before the session opened, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that 10 members of the House of Representatives could not stand for reelection at the end of their term because they had unexcused absences which barred them under Measure 113. And critical policy issues, like the impact of Measure 110 and the fentanyl crisis seemed to defy easy solution.

Yet “sometimes the issues are so big, that you don’t have the ability to step away,” said Kevin Campbell, from the Victory Group, a lobbying organization. Preston Mann, of Oregon Business industries, agreed. Both lobbyists discussed the major aspects of the session at the Springfield City Club March 21 program. They said that the fact that ballot initiatives were moving ahead and likely to qualify for the 2024 ballot on addiction issues and campaign finance reform left the legislature with no choice but to deal with the topics of face almost certain passage of initiatives each of which would probably require significant legislative action to make their impact workable. Mr. Campbell spoke in detail about the three bills that the Legislature passed to address issues surrounding Measure 110 – House Bill 4002, which provided the policy framework; SB 1553, which addressed use of controlled substances on public transit; and HB 5204, which appropriated $211 million to invest in services.

House Bill 4002 drew the most public interest. The most controversial feature of the bill is that it recriminalizes possession and use of controlled substances. In doing this the bill creates a new unclassified misdemeanor, outside of the tiered hierarchy of misdemeanors and felonies in Oregon criminal law. As Mr. Campbell described it, this crime would make the potential of treatment for substance abuse an offering in every case. Law enforcement, he said, does not believe that incarceration is not effective as a treatment for those whose only offense is use of drugs. During the question-and-answer period, Mr. Campbell was asked why he said the vast majority of Oregonians were in support of recriminalization, yet the testimony at legislative hearings on HB4002 was almost universally opposed. He responded by suggesting that some organizations specialize in soliciting testimony for a particular position, regardless of what polling suggests. The bill also creates what are called deflection programs which permit an officer to refer a suspect for treatment before booking. Mr. Campbell said 23 of Oregon’s 36 counties have agreed to participate in these programs. He did not say how treatment referral would be handled in the countries that did not agree to participate in the deflection programs. The bill also dealt with a recent court decision which made it difficult to prosecute distributors of drugs in the absence of a direct connection to a user and created enhanced penalties for dealing drugs near schools and treatment centers. A separate bill, Senate Bill 1553 specially created criminal penalties for use of controlled substances on public transit facilities.

Mr. Mann pointed to another significant action by the Legislature – the adoption of campaign finance reform which created some limits on political contributions. This, he said, was an issue where there were at least three initiative proposals that were being prepared for submission to the 2024 general election. His assessment was that the legislators concluded that some or all those initiatives might pass and that the result would be a confusion of new laws that the legislature would have to try and fix during the 2025 session. This, he said, motivated members to work for a bi-partisan solution which would provide some reform and hopefully eliminate the risk of the various initiatives all being enacted.

Mr. Mann was clear that he did not support the approach of limiting campaign contributions, saying that it had the result of limiting candidates ability to get out their message while doing nothing about the influence of so-called “dark money” which could be spent without the support, and sometimes even the knowledge, of candidates. He said that the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which made spending for support of political issues to influence an election a First Amendment issue, meant that limits on candidates’ support would mean candidates would no longer be in charge of their own message. The reforms enacted largely mirror federal contribution limits.

A novel feature of the new reforms is the ability to create “small donor committees” which are groups of humans (individuals not corporations) that can make slightly larger contributions to a candidate based on the number of people that participate in the committee. He added that the legislation addressed the “dark money” issue in part by requiring transparency and the public listing of donor’s names by super PACS. When asked about concerns that have been raised about subjecting donors who are identified to threats and harassment. He said the bill provided a process for shielding donors names when there is a real threat to them if identified.

Mr. Mann pointed out that the new limits do not go into effect until 2027, allowing the legislature to take a another look at the process, and consider potential refinements and improvements during the 2025 session.

2024. Mann also discussed three measures that the legislature has referred to the voters for consideration in 2024. Thes include, he said, a process for impeaching state officials, creation of a public service compensation commission, which will look at the salaries of elected officials and possibly recommend changes, and consideration of a proposal to create a system of ranked choice voting for statewide races. He said he expected the legislature had not considered creating such a system for legislative races since it is very rare to have more than two candidates for a legislative race. He said each of the legislative referrals had been approved in the 2023 session for inclusion on this year’s ballot.

To view the entire program on You Tube click here” Legislative Update.

The history of the Indigenous nations in what is now the United States is fraught with mistreatment – disease, dispossession, and attempted assimilation. Of all the nations affected, the Coquille (pronounced Ko-Kwel) tribe is a particularly troubling story. While many tribes were segregated into reservations where, while still abused they had some sense of connection to the land, the Coquille, like some other tribes, suffered the indignity of Congress declaring them extinct in 1954. They were, according to David Hill, Director of Economic Development for Lane County Operations for Tribal One, always more nomadic and mobile, but after termination they lost all rights to connect with the land and tribal members were left with no land they could call a homeland.

That story now has a happier ending, however. In 1989, after many years of effort by tribal members. Congress once again recognized the sovereignty of the tribe. The Coquille were the last of several tribes resident in Oregon to be restored. Restoration did not, however, include any rights to land, and the tribe is only now beginning to purchase land for its members and business activities.

At the March 7 City Club program Mr. Hill, and Judy Farm, Chief Executive Officer, provided an overview of Tribal One’s business portfolio (including Construction, Economic Development, Communications Technology, and Professional Services), and how the work they do translates into benefits for both the Coquille Indian Tribe and the communities in which we do business. Tribal One is the business arm of the tribe and works principally in the five-county area (Coos, Douglas, Curry, Jackson, and Lane counties) which Congress has designated as the service area of the tribe, although it conducts operations nationally. Tribal One is the economic development arm of the tribe and, Mr. Hill pointed out, completely separate from the gaming activities of the tribe which owns and operates the Mill Casino.

The business of Tribal One had its origins in broadband expansion as part of the attempts to place telecommunications fiber in the southwestern part of Oregon. That expanded to more general construction activity and even has recently included rehabilitation of an aged goof course near Medford and construction of the Margaritaville Hotel and resort next door.

Tribal One also bought an unused wharf in North bend. When the tribe bought some adjacent land for a parking lot, they ended up with an additional 50 acres of land which had been abandoned by Weyerhaeuser. While that dock has no direct connection with the massive North Bend container port concept, it will stand to benefit if that project becomes reality.

Finally, Tribal One now operates a wellness clinic which provides free services to members and has recently opened a satellite clinic in the River Road area of Eugene. To view the full program, click here: Tribal One.

 

Fire Chief Mike Caven updated Springfield City Club on the current state of the Department at the February 15 program. He focused on two areas: 1) the current issues facing the Department and 2) what next steps to take in their efforts to provide unified fire service to the two communities. This latter represents the next step in a lengthy process which began in 2007 when the two separate fire departments began to remove boundaries to allow for more efficient and effective fire service.

A consultant retained by the department will meet with the Springfield City Council on March 4 to provide a preliminary report on what next steps might be appropriate.

The legislative session is something that Chief Caven focused on in his comments. He noted that the current session is attempting to address the impacts of Measure 110 passed by the voters in 2020. He said that Eugene/Springfield fire had observed a significant increase in overdose calls to which the department must respond. He said that now the department is averaging over 150 overdose calls a month. He credited some portion of the increase to the fact that Oregon does not have a robust health infrastructure to treat drug users. While he said that calls had almost doubled, he cautioned that the increase came at the same time as the arrival of significant amounts of fentanyl on the scene. “Conditions have changed,” he said, “and current statistics are not comparable to past figures.”

Separately from efforts to address the impacts of Measure 110 he said that Rep. Nathanson has introduced legislation which would help with the restructuring of the local EMS system which the Department started last year. If passed, he said, the legislation would allow for a more varied response to 911 calls. While the ability to triage 911 medical calls would continue, it would also make it possible to evaluate more varied responses depending upon the nature of the caller’s needs.

Chief Caven said that there still are circumstances where a person will call 911 in the belief that arriving at a hospital emergency room by ambulance will get them quicker service. That isn’t the case, the chief said. ER staff will continue to triage all patients because of the severity of their need, meaning that in some cases people arriving by ambulance will wait in the ambulance while other, more urgent, cases are treated. This is a major problem for the EMD system because it can mean that an ambulance sits waiting at the ER until its passenger is reached for treatment. This so-called “wall time” is a major impediment, putting ambulances out of service and unable to respond to other calls.

A reworking of the EMS system would make it possible for a nurse practitioner in the 911 system, to evaluate a caller and determine if transport is the most effective remedy or if some other form of assistance – CAHOOTS, some other community response, or even dispatch of a nurse practitioner to the field as part of a community response team might be a better mode of treatment.

Another part of the current effort at EMS redesign is to consider whether it really is necessary to pay someone as both a firefighter and an EMS technician with advanced life support skills. He said that studies by the EMS training facilities indicate that almost half of the students training to be paramedics do not want to be firefighters. “It may be the case that the era of crossing firefighters and EMS paramedics is over,” he said. Already, the Department has transitioned two of four ambulances to carry paramedics who are not firefighters. Another one will be transitioned in March.

With respect to the functional merger, Chief Caven said that the process of functional combination reached a point in 2014 where personnel began working across jurisdictional lines, but that the department still reported to both City Councils and maintained two separate budgets. In 2022 the two cities agreed that the governance process should be reviewed and designated two members of each council to explore options.

He said that a consultant was retained to identify alternatives and as a result four alternatives have been identified. These alternatives include 1) not changing anything; 2) moving to a single department under the jurisdiction of one city with the other city contracting for service; 3) creating a separate governmental entity (somewhat similar to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, with the difference that that entity would employ all staff; and 4) forming an independent fire district to provide fire and life safety service to both communities. He added that there is a fifth alternative – to undo the merger and go back to two separate departments — but that alternative is one “that no one thinks is a good idea.”

Chief Caven said that the functional merger of the two departments had provided significant operational efficiencies as well as improving the departments’ abilities to recruit and hire. He said the biggest strength of the combined department is “the capacity improvements that result from being together.” He noted that before the merger, one Springfield house fire would deplete all of that department ‘s resources. Now Springfield stations provide first response to some areas in east Eugene and some Eugene stations provide response to western Springfield. “If each city needed to protect its own area,” he said, “each city would need to build more fire stations.”

The briefings currently scheduled for the two city councils will not be decision points on any of these alternatives but will be an effort to share where the process is and get direction on how to move forward with one or more of the alternatives.

Chief Caven said that the fourth alternative – creation of an independent fire district is “probably the most challenging option” because it would involve creating a new taxing entity and raise complex questions about the level of taxation presently imposed by each city. The issue grows very complex when it is recognized that a significant portion of City property taxes now support fire and life safety services. Moving to a separate district would raise the question of what to do about the level of taxation if fire and life safety were funded by a separate taxing entity.

To see the entire program on You Tube, click this link: Fire Service Update

 

Measure 110, which made significant changes in how Oregon deals with substance abuse and its impact on the community, has been a topic of animated discussion in the run up to the 2024 Legislative Assembly session which begins in February. Previously, Springfield City Club has sponsored programs which feature a panel, including Chief Deputy Lane County District Attorney Chris Parisa who supported either legislative change to the measure or potentially another ballot initiative. More recently, we hosted Dr. Camille Cioffi, who took no position on the measure and its scheme but discussed the data available to analyze the impact of the measure. This third program on the topic will feature a panel of providers who can describe the impact which the changes has had on the services they provide. Our guests will include Stephanie Cameron CRM II, CADC II, Founder/ Executive Director, Restored Connections Peer Center and Brittiny Raine, E.D. of Community Engagement) at Community Outreach through Radical Empowerment (CORE).

Services to deal with substance abuse are, under Measure 110, fund by grants of marijuana tax money to participants in Behavioral Health Resource Networks. Recent audits have raised questions about the distribution of these grants and the extent to which they have actually funded substance abuse recovery activities.

Continuing our series on Measure 110, On January 4 we heard from Dr. Camille Cioffi. Dr. Cioffi is a Research Assistant Professor at the Prevention Science Institute at UO. Her research focuses on improving health, mental health, and substance use outcomes among people with substance use disorders who are pregnant and parenting with a particular focus on highly stigmatized populations including people experiencing homelessness and people who inject drugs. Dr. Cioffi presented an overview of what research data show about the methods of dealing with substance abuse and treatment for substance abuse disorders.

She said there is clear evidence of what does works and results in three of the four adults experiencing substance abuse disorders report being in recovery, a condition that affects about 1 in every 10 adults.

The “gold standard,” she said, is medication treatment. As an example, she said, methadone treatment makes it more likely that individuals will stay in some other treatment regimen. She said that even without other treatment, medication treatment is effective. Contingency management –offering incentives to stop using drugs, is also effective, particularly when used in conjunction with medication. Even where there is no approved medication treatment, she said it can prove effective.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a common type of talk therapy (psychotherapy) involving work with a mental health counselor (psychotherapist or therapist) in a structured way, attending a limited number of sessions, can be effective for cannabis and alcohol related disorders, but is less effective for so-called hard drugs unless paired with medication management.

Finally, motivational interviewing is effective as a way to motivate other treatment modalities, but less effective as a standalone treatment.

She said that research indicated that any of these treatment approaches needs to be sustained over a significant period. She said that anything less than 30 days did not appear to be particularly effective, especially since there are generally other issues to be addressed in an individual who is under treatment for a substance abuse disorder.

Other methods of treatment, she said, are not supported by clear evidence of success. Simply telling people drugs are bad doesn’t seem to work, nor do short residential stays, particularly when not coupled with some other therapeutic approach. Involuntary treatment also cannot be documented as being effective. While she said there can be short term benefits from involuntary treatment, the research shows no consistent result. In some studies, it seems to have some benefit, in others there are negative effects. The most recent study, she said, out of Massachusetts, appeared to show worse outcomes from involuntary treatment.

Peer support services, like 12 step programs seem to be effective because increased social support can increase confidence and self-esteem. On challenge is that often the ancillary support services are not available unless prescribed by a mental health professional and for many drug users there is no access to insurance so no way these services can be paid for.

She said that there is no evidence that harm reduction services (access to safe needles, safe syringe programs, etc.) are effective, although they can be a way to reach out to users and persuade them to voluntarily enter some form of treatment.

The critical issue with any of these therapies, she said, is that there be some form of coordinated care. Simple referrals alone don’t work. There are too many steps to get people engaged in services without external support. It is important that there be professional help to assess the variety of problems the user faces and find ways to address each of the problems, not just drug use. One positive benefit of Measure 110, she said, is that it has sparked an increase in opportunities for coordination of care.

During the question and answer period Dr. Cioffi was asked directly about the impact of Measure 110 on substance abuse disorders. She said that under Measure 110, more of the evince based treatments, like peer support and crime reduction services were now receiving funding rather than relying solely on private grants. While the measure was designed to increase capacity for treatment, she said, there is still a need for funding more efforts to reach out to users. She also said that very little of the Measure 110 funding was going toward prevention.

Dr. Cioffi described a situation where the drug user finds themselves in an inescapable loop. Users turn to crime as a financial issue since they can’t find employment. But one of the reasons they can’t is they have no access to personal care resources, cannot get housing because of their drug use and can’t get help even if they want because they have no support network to help them find services. Frankly, she said, most drug users don’t even know the Measure 110 exists and don’t know how to access any of the available services.

1. Cioffi was critical of the suggestions for 48 to 72 hour “holds” to help reduce use by providing a “window of change.” Many users, she said, often go at least 72 hours between uses and, in addition, find jail a more comfortable place than being on the street, particularly in winter. She was also critical of “forcible detox” saying it more likely that someone would use after release from a situation where they were forcibly detoxed.

To view Dr. Cioffi’s presentation, please click this link: City Club Presentation.

To view the entire program on You Tube, click this link: Measure 110 continued.

 

 

The Oregon Drug Addiction and Treatment Act was passed by a voter referendum in November 2020. The Act (Ballot Measure 110), which became effective in January 2021 reduced the penalty for possessing small amounts of illegal drugs to a citation with a fine of up to $100. It provided that the fine could be avoided by completing a health assessment and created a system for getting services and support to drug users to get them to stop using drugs. The Legislature appropriated money from marijuana taxes to fund the assessment support and treatment programs.

In the two plus years since the measure was passed it has proved controversial. While advocates say it is functioning, many others question whether the decriminalization approach is working. Various proposals have surfaced seeking either to repeal or change the provisions of the Measure 1190 program.

Two groups seeking to make changes discussed their plans with the Springfield City Club on Thursday November 16.

Chief Deputy Lane County District Attorney Chris Parisa spoke on behalf of a group of district attorneys, chiefs of police, sheriffs, and the League of Oregon Cities about an eleven-step proposal to adopt legislation which, he said, would reverse some of the excesses and mistakes made in Measure 110.

Paige Richardson, owner of Springwater Partners, a consulting firm providing public affairs and political advice spoke of behalf of the Coalition To Fix and Improve Ballot Measure 110, which is preparing one or more ballot initiatives to put before the voters in November of this year, if the Legislature does not take appropriate action.

Mr. Parosa and Ms. Richardson agreed that new ballot measures are not the preferred way to address the issues they see with the novel approach incorporated in Measure 110. But they noted that the upcoming session of the legislature is a “short” session, limited to 35 days, and they expressed concern that the legislature would succeed in efforts to adopt changes. Since ballot measures may only be adopted in even-numbered years, those they represent have concluded that the need is so urgent that they must be ready to get something on the 2024 ballot if the legislature does not act.

The goal of each effort is to “fulfill the promise of Measure 110 – deliver more treatment, more quickly, to more people.”

The 11 step proposal supported by Mr. Parosa, which Ms. Richardson says her group would support, includes the following elements:

1. Reclassifying possession of controlled substances as a Class A misdemeanor. Formerly this was a Class C felony).
2. A fix to a court decision which effectively gutted the statue which made delivery of a controlled substance a crime.
3. Modify Senate Bill 48 which tried to end pretrial detention by developing a system which would allow sheriffs and the District Attorney to hold those accused of drug crimes pretrial.
4. Provide funding to county probation services and allow probation officers to mandate those accessed of drug offenses into treatment.
5. Create a new Class A Misdemeanor for use of a controlled substance in public. Establish a program to allow for diversion of those accused into a treatment program in lieu of prosecution.
6. Create a new Class A Misdemeanor for use of a controlled substance in an enclosed space. (This is based on statistics which say that a large majority of transit vehicles test positive for evidence of drug use on their vehicles or in the air of the vehicles.
7. Prioritize adequate e sustainable funding for specialty courts. (Mr. Parosa said that treatment courts had proven especially productive in dealing with specific sorts of crimes.)
8. Allow for use of “welfare holds” up to 72 hours where a person may be placed in short term custody upon arrest if are intoxicated or demonstrate mental health problems. At the end of that time the person accused could be offered an opportunity to go into treatment or be released.
9. Create adequate detox and stabilization capacity across the state.
10. Support creation of an opioid overdose quick response system.
11. Align requirements for siting of treatment facilities with the requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act.

While both speakers said they supported the intent of those who voted for Measure 1210, they argued that the measure, which they said was funded by those outside of Oregon, failed to recognize the reality that Oregon is one of the highest addicted areas in the country while being dead last in the services provided. While voluntary treatment, they said, as contemplated by Measure 100, is well intended, the people who supported it are wrong about how drug addicted persons act.

When asked about the impact that recriminalization might have on the justice system, Mr. Parosa acknowledged that it might put an additional strain on the ability to prosecute offenders but, he argued, the thrust of the proposals is not to convict people, but to find ways to effectively get them to accept treatment and, thereby, be diverted from the criminal justice system. If they are successful, he said, the prosecutors and public defenders would be able to accommodate any increased burden.

Ms. Richardson said they are not attacking either the proponents of the supporters of Measure 110. She said that the measure was brought forward by the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group seeking the legalization of all drugs. The groups behind Mr. Parosa and Ms. Richardson’s efforts believe that the pillars of an effective drug policy include prevention, enforcement treatment, and harm reduction. While Measure 110 tries to accomplish the latter two goals, they believe that there are unintended consequence of the measure and that expectations for its success were far too high, particularly given that there was only a 90-day period to prepare for implementation, a time frame simply not adequate. They do not believe that the current problems are simply an implementation ”hiccup” but rather a failure to recognize what is needed to bring the current crisis under control.

To view the entire program on You Tube click Measure 110.

City Club is working to arrange programs offering alternative perspectives from supporters of the Measure 110 effort and service providers.

 

Lane County is seeking project funding to construct a state-of-the-art Integrated Material and Energy Recovery Facility (IMERF) in Lane County, Oregon. The IMERF would be the most technologically advanced waste processing facility in the country and would utilize technology and equipment built in the USA. The integrated facility would process municipal solid waste, single stream recycling, and organic waste to produce marketable recycling commodities and biogas for transportation. The facility would hopefully divert over 80,000 tons of material annually from the County’s landfill for processing, generate marketable natural gas, and would serve as a regional recycling hub for southwest Oregon.

The project is a public private partnership between Lane County, which holds the highest recycling rate of any county in Oregon, and Bulk Handling Systems. Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) is headquartered and has its main manufacturing facility in Eugene, Oregon. BHS is a worldwide leader in the innovative design, engineering, manufacturing and installation of sorting systems and components for solid waste management, recycling, waste-to-energy, and construction and demolition industries.

Dan Hurley, The Lane County Public Works Director, said that the County was motivated to explore this proposal because burying waste is not the most effective way to handle trash. Landfills compress waste which eliminates oxygen from the material in the landfill. That leads to deterioration which produces methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂. Maintaining a landfill is also expensive and requires a constant supply of additional land. Each 8-12 years a new “cell” must be added to the landfill at a cost of about $18 million. The current landfill at Short Mountain has a remaining useful life of about 20 years. Creating this facility would extend that life for another 20 to 30 years and avoid even more expensive solutions like those employed by Portland, which trucks its waste to eastern Oregon and Washington.

Jeff Orlandini, County Waste Management Division Manager, added that the system would increase the County’s recycling ability. White Lane County has the best recycling rate in the state now, at 52 percent., this system would get the County over the 70 percent mark, he said. This system permits also could capture about 80 percent of the methane that could be generated from organic waste, and removing organic new organic waste from the landfill would also help to extend its life. When asked about whether or not this change would interfere with the relationship with EPUD, who now uses methane from the landfill, he said that existing organics already in the landfill would generate methane to fulfill the agreement with EPUD for the full term of that agreement.

Concerns that have been raised about the project relate to the fact that the funding mechanisms would require regular increases in garbage rates over the next several years. Thes would result from increases in the “tipping fee” which Lane County imposes on haulers. That fee, which makes up about 20 percent of the average garbage bill would go up significantly to fund the costs of the $135 million project, which would be funded by $35 million from the County and $100 million from BHS. BHS will recoup some of its spending by selling the methane generated at the plant. The County expects to recover fees from plastic producers who are obliged to support recycling under legislation passed in 2019. Current estimates suggest that residential rates would rise by about 10 to 14 percent over the next six years and commercial rates would rise by 14 to 20 percent over that time.

While there are number of other waste related infrastructure projects which the County is exploring (such as potential relocation of the Glenwood transfer station or the construction of infrastructure to provide sewer service to Goshen and move the leachate from the landfill to the Wastewater Treatment Plant), staff has recommend moving this one ahead because it can take advantage of significant federal funding under the American Recovery Act which remains available only for a limited period of time.

The facility would not be a replacement for the existing EcoSort facility and the Glenwood transfer station. It would be located in Goshen, a little over a mile north of the Short Mountain landfill. Its location would offer a benefit to haulers because of the reduced distance saving haulers about three miles for each round trip.

Steve Miller of Bulk Handling Systems said that they already have local relationships between companies that will provide the construction and the steel needed for the facility, generating more local economic activity. He said that the facility would be constructed in about 24 months from the time the County approves the agreement with Bulk Handling Systems. The facility would also reduce the cost of handling recyclables because they could be processed locally rather than, as now, being transported to Portland for handling.  The gas produced by the plant would be dedicated to transportation needs (to take advantage of federal tax credits thereby reducing the net cost of the project) and would provide enough fuel to operate 115 trucks or buses for a year. He said LTD is one entity considering the possibility of using that fuel.

For a brief overview of the project and its goals, click HERE.  To view the entire presentation click PowerPoint. To view the entire program on You Tube click Managing Waste

To understand the challenges the local journalism faces, one must understand the impact of major changes to the public ecosystem and general culture, according to Tim Gleason, professor emeritus at the University of Oregon and a long time print journalist. Mr. Gleason, and Noel Nash, the owner of The Chronicle, a hyperlocal newspaper covering Springfield and surrounding small communities, discussed the future of local journalism at the October 19 Springfield City Club program. “While we follow the same professional standards based on fact-based reporting, people make their own inferences about what we write based on their own perception of the world,” he said.

“We live in a world of news of assertion,” Gleason said, as opposed to fact-based news. The line between journalism and social media is constantly blurred. Too often, he added, people immediately jump to conclusions:” if it is consistent with what I believe, it must be true.”

Many of the challenges associated with local journalism can be traced to the fundamental changes in information gathering with the growth of the internet.  Since the founding of the nation, the business model for journalism has been based on a balanced of funding from advertisers and from readers who paid for subscriptions. With the expansion of internet access, businesses have discovered they no longer need to advertise in print media to reach their customers. They can do that with less cost by direct outreach. This disconnect between advertising and content has led to the demise of much of local print media, to be replaced by large national chains which commoditize news. Both presenters pointed to the substantial changes in the Eugene Register Guard as a demonstration of the effects. USA Today, they said, can produce a generic story on a topic which is uniformly distributed to all media in the huge Gannett chain. Interesting, perhaps, but with little or no connection to the community in which the reader lives.

By contrast, Mr. Nash pointed out, a local or hyperlocal news outlet would talk to individuals in the community about the impact of the subject on their lives and produce reporting which focuses attention on the local community. Mr. Gleason pointed to a recent school board election in Eugene. “If the Eugene Weekly hadn’t taken on the story,” he said,” it is possible that no one in Eugene would have even known there was an election.”

The challenge of funding local journalism is exacerbated by the reality that there is so much information or perhaps misinformation, available online. People say, “information wants to be free,” but Mr. Gleason pointed out that journalists need to pay the rent. Mr. Nash added that there is value in access to a newspaper either in print or electronically. “What you get for your subscription is curated information,” he said. “Probably everything in the paper can ultimately be found on the internet, with enough time and diligence in searching. The Chronicle organizes what is most interesting and useful to the local communities it serves.”

The other value, both presenters added, is that the information presented is fact-based journalism. The Chronicle, Mr. Nash said, works hard to remain non-partisan, to write a story that is governed by the traditional ethics of journalism and free from the biases of the reporter. Those ethics haven’t changed. “We report has we always have — two sources off the record or one source on the record.” In some ways, he added, the task might be simpler for local news. “You have to remember that the people you write about are the same ones you will see in the grocery line, or the coffee shop the next morning.”

Both presenters recognized the additional challenge of the local press that results from frequently hiring staff fresh out of school with no experience. While Mr. Nash said the Chronicle would be happy to be known as a place where journalists got their start and then moved on to larger markets, it is still important to train staff to high ethical standards and keep them focused on transparency. “Transparency is a way to deal with a lack of trust,” Mr. Nash said. “Nobody is going to trust by default, so we have to be seen as living up to the ideals we espouse.” Mr. Gleason overserved that this is an important part of getting people to care about their community and to think it is important to care about their community.

In response to a question, Mr. Nash said The Chronicle has far more print subscribers than electronic subscribers. What he has seen is that the most rapid growth in subscribers is from those who live in Eugene. “The Chronicle does not cover Eugene, but apparently many in Eugene are interested in what is happening in surrounding communities.”

Both presenters expressed concern about the future of funding for local journalism. Mr. Gleason suggested that it might be appropriate to consider additional tax subsidies for newspapers, much like the long standing reduced postal rate for the press. Mr. Nash said that The Chronicle has moved to add opportunities for philanthropic support of the paper. While large local companies serving a national market may not need to reach local residents by advertising, their interest in having a strong local community where they operate could be a motivation for them to donate to help the paper.

An audience question asked how information can be provided to a whole community divided between have and have nots, who cannot afford the price of a subscription. Mr.  Gleason said that question raised a more fundamental issue – how do we build a healthy civic culture. That is not simply a newspaper problem, he said, suggesting that it raised the important question of whether access to information required that the internet be treated like a public utility, to which all residents should be assured access.

You may listen to the complete program on You Tube by clicking this link: The State of Local News.