Portland Tribune
March 1, 2016
By Shasta Kearns Moore
Two sides of the Portland State University payroll tax debate are unhappy with a Metro attorney's characterization of the measure.
The Portland Business Alliance and the chief petitioner have both filed motions in Multnomah County Circuit Court opposing ballot language drafted by a Metro attorney for a payroll tax that would benefit Portland State University.
PBA’s motion also goes a step further, questioning the constitutionality of the measure on the grounds that it may cover more than one subject.
“These filings are not unusual; the questions we raised are typically explored whenever ballot measure initiatives and referenda are filed,” said PBA’s president and CEO Sandra McDonough in an email.
What is unusual is the wedge this proposed tax seems to be driving between the university and the business community.
Chief Petitioner Peter Zuckerman said the PBA’s motion is a tactic designed to delay the measure.
“Because businesses pay this tax, and not individuals, the PBA is trying to stall the process,” Zuckerman said. “That’s what they’re doing.”
However, Zuckerman has also filed his own motion claiming vague and inaccurate language and asking the court to rewrite the ballot question and summary.
“It’s vital for voters to know that under this initiative, businesses pay a rate of one-tenth of one percent,” he said. The ballot question currently does not contain the rate, stating simply: “Shall voters enact region-wide business payroll tax for Portland State University scholarships, instructors, advisors; assign tax administration responsibility to Metro?”
Zuckerman’s motion also asserted that the Oregon Department of Revenue will administer the tax, not Metro.
McDonough agreed that affordable education was a major issue, but questioned whether PSU alone should benefit from a tax on about half the state’s payroll.
“It makes no sense to us that this Portland-metro-wide tax would be used to support a local student attending PSU, but not a local student attending Southern Oregon University, for example,” she said. “How is that fair? We have expressed our concern directly to PSU leaders, letting them know that we are pursuing all the usual avenues associated with a ballot measure opposition.”
McDonough added that she would rather come up with an alternative solution in collaboration with PSU.
“We continue to urge PSU to ask the ballot measure proponents to withdraw this initiative so that we can engage in a productive conversation and help find the right solution for the issues the university has raised,” she said.
Zuckerman said the university has been working on this issue for 15 years already.
“They’ve been trying to find alternative sources of funding for a long, long time and the situation is getting worse,” he said. “And the longer we wait, the more students can’t go to college.”
Zuckerman also claimed some major players in the business community are supportive of the measure, but declined to name names.
“It’s a little too early for us to be rolling out endorsements, but stay tuned.”
Once the court decides the ballot language question, the political action committee can begin collecting signatures of Metro resident voters.