Senate Bill 617 didn’t make it . . . this year

by Anne Koppel Conway

SALEM — Wonderful, brave people came out to testify in favor of Senate Bill 617 – Oregonians for Safe Auto Repair’s anti-collusion bill – giving intelligent, well thought out testimony before the Oregon Senate’s Consumer Protection Committee. (See Senate Bill 617 is good for consumers)

Some bills make it out of committee and then the whole Senate gets a chance to vote on them. If the Senate gives a bill a nod, then the House has a go at it. If both houses give it a, Yea, then the governor has to sign it before it can become law.

If it had passed, SB 617 would have prohibited insurers from having Direct Referral Programs (DRPs) in Oregon. Insurers would have been prevented from having any kind of office – such as an area to assess the damage of vehicles that have been in accidents, an estimating area – within 100 feet of the shop where the consumer’s vehicle was being repaired. (Eliminating conflicts of interest) Also, both insurers and other third parties that are financially responsible for paying for repairs to a consumer’s vehicle would not have been able to directly influence or suggest how the repair shop transforms a vehicle back to its pre-loss condition, or influence the cost of repairs. (Eliminating more conflicts of interest)

It all made sense. The proposed bill still makes sense and would still be good for consumers.

So what happened to our bill? It was tabled in the committee. There are two parts to the story.

First: It’s the economy

The dominant reaction of Oregon lawmakers for this 2009 legislative session is that any bill that does not directly relate to Oregon’s less than stable economy, which translates into diminished revenue for education and public services – is a waste of time. To quote Gov. Ted Kulongoski, “Why are they wasting their time on that?”

SB 617 wasn’t the only bill to fall victim to the state of the economy this legislative session.

“In a normal session, when you don’t have a $44 billion contraction in Oregon’s economy,” the legislators would be considering a wide range of bills by now, said Sen. Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day). “But with 22% unemployment in some counties and a 12.1% statewide [unemployment] average,” everything else “just looks foolish.”

Sen. Vicki Walker, (D- Eugene) said that the public currently has zero tolerance for lawmakers who aren’t dead serious about their work in Salem. Oregonians “are seeing anything not related to the budget as unnecessary or trivial.”

Although she and other lawmakers think they are being unfairly accused of wasting time, just because they are taking on issues not directly tied to the state’s fiscal and economic troubles.

Given the current economy, who can blame the public or our hard working lawmakers?

Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland), co-chair of the Legislature's Joint Ways and Means Committee, put it in more understandable terms: Picture how much money you make. Then cut that figure by 15 or 20 percent and try to figure out how you would make ends meet, he suggested.

Sailing into unchartered waters is not an easy task. It’s like venturing into a dark cave and feeling something beneath the surface about to bubble up – like black sludge, said Walker, who tried to describe what it’s like to deal with a projected budget shortfall of $3.1 billion or more.

Senate President Peter Courtney (D-Salem) who sees the Legislature as a wide-open bazaar of ideas, points out that in many cases bills are introduced on behalf of ordinary Oregonians who want a voice in their state’s representative democracy.

The second part of the story

“Among legislators there was lots of interest in the issue,” said Bill Marr, a lobbyist representing OSAR. “We were able to articulate the problem and made progress. But we would have made a bigger impact on the issue if more Oregon shops were involved.”

So where does that leave OSAR’s proposed anti-collusion bill? In 2010 we’ll be back in Salem – stronger and more prepared for the next legislative session. Join us and help us make a difference.

_________

Article includes excerpts from Register Guard articles