Title: Chase v. Myers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S46118
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: May 20, 1999

Filed:  May 20, 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

JOHN CHASE and JAMES SAGER,

	Petitioners,

		v.

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General,
State of Oregon,

	Respondent,

		and

STUART MILLER and BECKY MILLER,

	Intervenors.

(SC S46118)

	En Banc

	On petition to review ballot title.

	Argued and submitted March 5, 1999.

	Paul B. Gamson, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond &amp; Olney, Portland,
argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners.

	Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause for respondent.  With him on the answering
memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D.
Reynolds, Solicitor General.

	Paul R. Rundle, of Kent &amp; Associates, P.C., Portland, filed
a response for intervenors.

	KULONGOSKI, J.

	Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision shall
become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

		KULONGOSKI, J.

		In this original proceeding, petitioners challenge the
Attorney General's certified ballot title for proposed initiative
30.(1)  Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written
comments regarding the draft ballot title.  ORS 250.067(1). 
Consequently, petitioners are entitled to seek modification of
the Attorney General's certified ballot title in this court.  ORS
250.085(2).  Intervenors Stuart Miller and Becky Miller are the
chief proponents of the proposed initiative and, under ORAP
11.30(8), intervened to respond to the petition.  We review for
substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035.  ORS
250.085(5).  For the reasons that follow, we modify the Attorney
General's ballot title and, as modified, certify it to the
Secretary of State.  

		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title to the Secretary of State:

"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: INCREASES TEACHERS' 

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, PERFORMANCE DETERMINES 

PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER PAY

		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote increases
teachers' disciplinary authority; requires performance
determine public school teacher pay, job security.

		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote rejects increasing
disciplinary authority; rejects requiring performance
determine public teachers' pay, job security.

		"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution.  Authorizes teacher
to permanently remove disruptive students from
classroom.  Currently, seniority and postgraduate study
may determine public school teacher pay, job security. 
Measure requires teacher's pay, job security to be
based on increase in students' appropriate knowledge
while under teacher's instruction.  Allows performance-based 
pay increases, certain across-the-board cost-of-living increases, 
retention of most qualified teachers
when layoffs occur.  Prohibits seniority-based
automatic pay increase, job retention.  Applies to new,
extended collective bargaining agreements signed
on/after November 7, 2000."  

		Petitioners challenge all sections of the Attorney
General's ballot title.

CAPTION

		Petitioners first object to the caption.  ORS
250.035(2) requires a caption "reasonably [to] identif[y] the
subject matter of the state measure" in not more than 10 words. 
Petitioners argue that the Attorney General's caption is both
misleading and inaccurate and therefore fails to meet the
statutory requirement to identify reasonably the subject matter
of the proposed initiative.

		As noted, proposed initiative 30 is a companion measure
to proposed initiative 29, which is discussed in Sager v. Myers,
___ Or ___, ___ P2d ___ (May 20, 1999) (also decided this date). 
As with proposed initiative 29, proposed initiative 30 would
create a constitutional requirement that "job performance," as
defined identically in each measure, would determine the pay of
public school teachers.  Both proposed initiatives define "job
performance" as the "degree to which the appropriate knowledge of
the teacher's students increased while under his or her
instruction."  Proposed initiative 30 adds to the definition of
"job performance" additional employment-related standards for
permanent teaching status, retention, and dismissal of public
school teachers.  Proposed initiative 30 also includes a
provision, unrelated to the definition of "job performance," that
would establish statewide regulations for maintaining student
discipline in the classroom. 

		Petitioners repeat here the argument that they made in
Sager:  the Attorney General's caption is misleading, because it
uses the term "performance" in referring to teacher job
performance, without noting that the proposed initiative uses the
term in an uncommon way.  See Witt v. Kulongoski, 319 Or 7, 15,
872 P2d 14 (1994) (court omitted the word "clearcutting" from
ballot title when proposed initiative used it in "a very
different and uncommon" way from that in which it ordinarily
would be understood).  For the reasons set out in our decision in
Sager, petitioners' argument is well taken.  Accordingly, we
modify the Attorney General's caption to reflect the unique
definition of the term "job performance" in the proposed
initiative.

		Petitioners next argue that the Attorney General's
caption is insufficient, because it fails to identify that "job
security based on job performance, not seniority," is one of the
important subject matters found in proposed initiative 30.  The
Attorney General argues that this court should refuse to consider
that argument, because petitioners failed to suggest in their
comments to the Secretary of State that the omission of a
reference to job security made the caption insufficient.  The
Attorney General acknowledges that petitioners suggested an
alternative caption that referred to job security, but he argues
that that suggestion was nothing more "than a claim that their
proposal was better" and, therefore, does not satisfy the
requirements of ORS 250.085(6).  In reviewing petitioners'
comments to the Secretary of State in response to the Attorney
General's draft ballot title, we conclude that petitioners raised
the issue of job security as it relates to the definition of "job
performance."

		Our review of proposed initiative 30 reveals that
teacher job security is an important part of its subject matter. 
Proposed initiative 30 specifically provides that "public school
teachers shall * * * have job security based on job performance,
not seniority."  The proposed initiative further provides that "a
policy granting tenure to teachers shall be considered job
security based on seniority."  Another provision states that "a
policy which does not allow school boards * * * to expeditiously
dismiss a teacher which * * * it does not deem qualified * * *
shall be considered job security based on seniority."  Without a
disclosure of the measure's impact on job security, the Attorney
General's caption does not comply substantially with the
requirements of ORS 235.035(2).  We conclude that some
modification of the Attorney General's caption is required to
notify voters that job security is an important part of the
subject matter of proposed initiative 30.

		Petitioners next assert that the caption is inaccurate,
because it states that proposed initiative 30 "increases
teachers' disciplinary authority."  Petitioners focus
specifically on the term "increases."  They argue that the word
"increase" is a comparative term and that, because the caption
fails to identify the comparator, the caption is inaccurate. 
They also assert that, under current law, school districts could
adopt policies giving teachers the authority to remove students
from the classroom and, therefore, use of the word "increase" is
inaccurate in any event.  The Attorney General responds that,
under the proposed initiative, the constitution would authorize a
teacher to remove a disruptive student from the classroom
permanently and to override a contrary decision of the school
principal or the superintendent of the local school district. 
Therefore, according to the Attorney General, the measure would
increase teachers' disciplinary authority in the classroom.

		It is important to note that none of the parties
dispute that student discipline is an important part of the
subject matter of proposed initiative 30 or that it would
establish new statewide regulations for student discipline. 
Rather, they disagree about whether the establishment of
statewide regulations has the effect of increasing teachers'
disciplinary authority.  We need not resolve that question,
because the Attorney General's caption fails to identify the key
subject matter, i.e., that the measure would establish statewide
regulations for student discipline.  Therefore, the Attorney
General's caption provides an insufficient description of the
proposed initiative's subject matter regarding student
discipline, and that flaw requires a modification of the caption.

		We modify the Attorney General's caption as follows:

      AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ESTABLISHES STATEWIDE REGULATIONS

FOR TEACHER PAY, JOB SECURITY, STUDENT DISCIPLINE.

RESULT STATEMENTS

		Result statements shall be "simple and understandable"
statements of not more than 15 words that describe the results if
the proposed initiative is approved or rejected.  ORS
250.035(2)(b), (c). 

		 Petitioners argue that the phrases "requires
performance determine" in the "Yes" result statement and "rejects
requiring performance determine" in the "No" result statement are
not "understandable," as required by the statute.

		Petitioners' argument is well taken.  The result
statements do not comply substantially with the statutory
requirement of a "simple and understandable statement" that
describes the results if the proposed initiative is approved or
rejected.  Petitioners also criticize the result statements for
the same reasons expressed in their arguments challenging the
Attorney General's caption.  We agree that, for the reasons
discussed above regarding that caption, petitioners' arguments
state valid criticisms of the result statements.  We modify the
result statements to describe accurately the results of a "yes"
or "no" vote on the proposed initiative, as follows: 

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:  "Yes" vote establishes
statewide regulations for public school teacher pay,
job security and student discipline. 

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:  "No" vote retains school
district's regulation of teacher pay, job security and
student discipline standards.

SUMMARY

		The summary statement is "a concise and impartial
statement of not more than 85 words summarizing the measure and
its major effect."  ORS 250.035(2)(d).  Petitioners advance five
objections to the Attorney General's summary.  First, petitioners
contend that a major effect of the proposed initiative is to
shift power away from local school districts to the state. 
Because we have modified the caption to read that the proposed
initiative "establishes statewide regulations," we have addressed
petitioners' concern about that consequence of the proposed
initiative.

		Next, petitioners object to the non-standard use of the
word "performance" in the summary.  However, the summary
articulates the definition of the phrase "job performance" from
the proposed initiative itself, which is an "increase in
students' appropriate knowledge while under teacher's
instruction."  Petitioners' criticism of that aspect of the
Attorney General's summary is not well taken. 

		Petitioners next argue that the statement "[c]urrently,
seniority and postgraduate study may determine public school
teacher pay, job security" is misleading and underinclusive. 
Petitioners contend that, under current law, a local school
district can establish almost any criteria for teacher pay and
job security.  Petitioners are correct, but that does not
necessarily demonstrate that the Attorney General's summary is
not sufficient.  Seniority and postgraduate study are among the
factors that currently may determine teacher pay and job
security, but they are not the only ones.  The proposed
initiative would alter current law by prohibiting teacher pay
increases based on those specific criteria.  Therefore, the
comparison that the Attorney General's summary makes between
current law and the scheme under the proposed initiative is not
misleading.  

		Petitioners next object to the use of the word
"seniority" because, they assert, the proposed initiative
distorts the common meaning of that word.  The proposed
initiative refers to tenure as an aspect of seniority and
provides that postgraduate study shall be considered to be
seniority when used as the sole basis for pay increases without
reference to job performance.   

		We first address petitioners' contention that tenure is
not commonly considered to be an aspect of seniority. 
Petitioners offer no support for their proposition that tenure
currently is based on considerations other than seniority.  The
proposed initiative does not define the term "tenure."  Tenure
means 

	"a status granted usu[ally] after a probationary period
to one holding a position esp[ecially] as a teacher * *
*."  Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 2357
(unabridged ed 1993).

Based on this commonly understood definition of the term
"tenure," we conclude that the Attorney General's use of the word
"seniority" to refer to tenure is not misleading or otherwise in
violation of the requirements of ORS 250.035.    

		Next, we address petitioners' argument that, because
the proposed initiative treats pay increases based on a teacher's
postgraduate study as "pay based on seniority," the Attorney
General's use of the term is misleading.  The summary statement
explains in the fourth and fifth sentences that teacher pay and
job security would be dependent on an increase in student
knowledge, in contrast to the current law, under which seniority
and postgraduate study may be a factor in salary determinations. 
Therefore, when the Attorney General's summary states in the
sixth sentence that the proposed initiative prohibits seniority-based
 pay increases, the voter already is aware that the proposed
initiative affects salary determinations based on postgraduate
study.  We therefore conclude that the use of the term
"seniority" is not misleading.

		Finally, petitioners contend that the sentence
"[a]uthorizes teacher to permanently remove disruptive students
from classroom" is inaccurate, because the proposed initiative
only permits permanent removal of students who are "repeatedly
returned" to the classroom against the teacher's will.  The
Attorney General responds that the proposed initiative empowers
teachers to prevent the repeated return of disruptive students. 
We agree with the Attorney General.  

		We conclude that the summary substantially complies
with the statutory mandate that it summarize the major effects of
the proposed initiative.  ORS 250.035(2)(d). 

		Accordingly, we certify the following ballot title to
the Secretary of State:

      AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ESTABLISHES STATEWIDE REGULATIONS

FOR TEACHER PAY, JOB SECURITY, STUDENT DISCIPLINE.

		RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:  "Yes" vote establishes
statewide regulations for public school teacher pay,
job security and student discipline. 

		RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:  "No" vote retains school
district's regulation of teacher pay, job security and
student discipline standards.

		SUMMARY:  Amends Constitution.  Authorizes teacher
to permanently remove disruptive students from
classroom.  Currently, seniority and postgraduate study
may determine public school teacher pay, job security. 
Measure requires teacher's pay, job security to be
based on increase in students' appropriate knowledge
while under teacher's instruction.  Allows performance-based 
pay increases, certain across-the-board cost-of-living increases,
 retention of most qualified teachers
when layoffs occur.  Prohibits seniority-based
automatic pay increase, job retention.  Applies to new,
extended collective bargaining agreements signed
on/after November 7, 2000.

		Ballot title certified as modified.  This decision
shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).

1. 	The Secretary of State designated this initiative as
proposed initiative 30.  He designated the companion proposed
initiative, discussed in Sager v. Myers, ___ Or ___, ___ P2d ___
(May 20, 1999), as proposed initiative 29.