Editor’s Note: The Mid-Willamette Valley User’s Group
(MWVLUG) released to the public today their CD-ROM entitled, “The
Open Source Impact, Keeping Oregon’s Money In Oregon.” The online
version of the CD-ROM was formerly released only to Senators, a few
Representatives, and Linux-related email lists.
MWVLUG is releasing the CD to the public to increase
awareness of the true nature of this issue, including open-source
software’s fiscal benefit for Oregon and strong-arm licensing
practices by some proprietary vendors. If there were ever a
question of what prevents some agencies from procuring open-source
software, this should leave no doubt; two of my favorites are fear
of losing out on “Enterprise discounts” and ‘random’ “software
assurance” audits.
MWVLUG’s coordinator, Cooper Stevenson, has asked Linux
Today to post this detailed history of events surrounding the
battle to get open source software legislation enacted in the
Beaver State in an effort to raise public awareness for the
campaign. Stevenson’s report follows…
The fight continues…
As some of you recall, the original Open Source Consideration
bill for Oregon, HB2892, had a sensational public hearing,
prompting Rep. Krummel (R-Wilsonville), chair of the General
Government Committee, to have the bill move forward to a work
session.
I attended the first such meeting, along with the Bill’s author,
Ken Barber, representatives from the Oregon Education system, the
Department of Administrative services, Representative Barnhart, and
lobbyists representing Microsoft, the Business Software Alliance,
and the American Electronics Association.
The opposition made clear that they were not happy with the
language in the bill that asked for justification if state agencies
do not choose open source software. They said it was preferential
because agency employees may choose open-source software simply
because they would rather not hassle with justifying their choice
of proprietary software. I personally thought this was reasonable;
it’s our goal to give Oregon taxpayers the best value, not to hurt
proprietary software vendors. The “justification piece” was
dropped.
The lobbyists left shortly thereafter. It seemed clear to me
they were not willing to negotiate, or maybe they had legislation
in Texas or Australia to fight. Who knows, they left without
comment. The rest of us continued to hammer out changes to the bill
that seemed to satisfy each of our perspectives. I left the meeting
feeling that we had truly met a compromise.
Now that I think about it, it’s at least plausible that they
showed up for the work session just to show they were good sports
and then headed to Karen Minnis’s office–shaking their heads–to
tell her, “we just can’t work with them, the economic impact of
this bill is just too much!”
On the afternoon of the second work session (designed to
finalize the legal language and for which it was not necessary for
me to be present) I called an official who told me that the
attendees had shown up for the second meeting only to have
Representative Krummel inform them that there would simply be no
further work on the bill.
Now, there are at this point basically only two people who could
kill this bill outright: Representative Krummel and Karen Minnis,
speaker of the House. It likely wasn’t Representative Krummel, as
he had called for the session in the first place. It was most
likely the speaker, Karen Minnis.
From there, things got touchy.
According to the article linked below, Representative Krummel
was still hopeful for a second work session:
http://rogueimc.org/2003/04/538.shtml
It says:
“Representative Krummel said he could still hold a work
session–the discussion of changes to the bill before a committee
vote–if a compromise is reached. But after today, he will need
permission from House Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village. “
Representative Minnis never gave that permission. Things became
heated.
First, Ken Barber wrote a scathing editorial in the
Oregonian–the largest newspaper in the state–where he asked of
the Speaker here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1051876782142831.xml
Shortly thereafter, Rep. Minnis fired back with an editorial of
her own here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1052222246325432.xml
Only one hitch; in her article she used the phrase, “A solution
in search of a problem.” That’s the exact phrase used by the
lobbyist opposition during the hearing. If there were any doubt
before as to who had killed the Legislation, all doubts had now
been removed. You can listen to the hearing here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2003s/HGG-200304030813.ram
A few weeks later, Steve Duinn, a reporter for the Oregonian,
summed up the action in his article and wrapped up with this: “I’m
at a loss to explain why Minnis–the champion of a caucus that
wants to cut government and cut costs–is so unmotivated to act on
hers.” Story here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/105377817415280.xml
It is worthy of note that if SB 589 makes it through the Senate,
Rep. Minnis will have the opportunity to do the right thing. I hope
she does.
What happened next was nothing short of unbelievable. It came a
couple of months later in the form of an e-mail from one of Rep.
Barnhart’s dedicated staff, Sally Nunn:
“There appears to be a movement underfoot to get something going
again. I will submit the tons of material I have gathered, Phil
will go talk to Sen. Brown, and you-all… KEEP UP THE GOOD
WORK!”
With a thread of hope, I began to work the phone. I called
George Okulitch of Senator Kate Brown’s office and asked him what
was happening. George told me that there’s a letter circulating
among the Senators on the Rules Committee calling for a re-drafting
of HB 2892 by the Legislative Council.
What was not surprising was the support from this bill from both
Republicans and Democrats; the “D’s” on the committee had signed
the letter immediately. The Republican chair, Senator Bev Clarno,
had signed the letter, too, on the condition that a colleague from
her party would also sign.
That left Sen. Beyer and Sen. Atkinson to voice their
opinions.
Sen. Beyer had previously indicated as I had understood it that
he was more or less against the legislation. Still, I knew I had to
try.
I spoke with Senator Beyer late one Friday afternoon. He told me
that one of the biggest issues he had with this bill was that there
really wasn’t anything to prevent state agencies to procure
open-source software as is.
My reply was three-fold.
First, open-source projects simply do not have the $38-billion
marketing war chest that proprietary vendors have. A technician
armed with thorough knowledge of the problem and a solid
recommendation is no match for the professional sales staffs of the
proprietary software vendors. This is especially true when we’re
talking about so-called “risk-averse CIOs.”
Second, that the reality is IT personnel sometimes make
decisions based on what they know (read: what keeps them in a job),
instead of by “best value” Sour grapes? Maybe, Maybe not. Here’s
one example:
Oracle© databases -> Windows 2000© running Apache
Web Servers
Translation: “We can’t get rid of the Oracle databases because
there’s nothing Microsoft® has that can come even close to
meeting our needs. We need to run the Apache Web Server because the
web-based application developers won’t touch IIE with a stick. No
matter, though, we’ll sandwich Windows in there somewhere so that
we can run into the server room every week to reboot the servers
and keep our jobs.”
I might accept the argument that they just weren’t sure yet of
Linux as middleware except for (1) Apache was designed to run on
Linux and (2) they hadn’t even considered using Linux in their
tests.
Third, there’s a lot of strong-arm licensing practices by
Microsoft that stifles agencies’ consideration for open-source
software. You can find documentation on the online version of “The
Open Source Impact” CD-ROM under the “Single Vendor Issues.”
Sen. Beyer wouldn’t budge. He was convinced of what the capitol
building IT staff had told him: that open-source software would
raise TCO, not lower it.
I slumped my way out of his office. I went down the elevator
thinking, “I guess that’s just the way it is.”
The true force of what was at stake only really hit me as I
exited the Capitol’s revolving doors; this could be the end of the
line. Thinking “that’s not good enough,” I turned and headed back
into the Capitol to try just once more time.
As I approached Sen. Beyer’s office I called out to him,
“Senator Beyer,” I said, “would you at least consider this
legislation?”
“I’ll tell you what I’ll do,” he said, “if Senator Atkinson says
it’s okay, then it’s okay with me–he’s the tech guy.”
I thanked him respectfully and headed for the elevator, this
time not slumped, but grinning from ear-to-ear.
The key, then, resided with Sen. Atkinson.
Senator Atkinson represents Oregon Senate district 2. District 2
has Grant’s Pass, Population 23,003 and Cave Junction, Population
1,363. Both are located in Josephine County, total population
75,726.
My phone bill began to smoke. I spoke with officials with the
economic development department, IT Directors, District 2 computer
stores, business owners, real estate agents, and folks who had
worked with Sen. Atkinson in the past.
You name it.
These folk of Josephine County are fairly down to earth. When I
spoke with many of them about TCO, peer review, etc., I quickly
learned that most people in that area aren’t concerned with that
kind of thing. “Well, that’s all and good,” they would begin, “but
you see, there’s an antique dealer downtown who would really like
to sell his goods online. What can open-source do for him?”
Okay, we’re down to Earth. “Bottom line,” I said, “is that
open-source software lets the shop keeper cost-effectively hire a
local consultant to put up a server for him on commodity hardware.
Guess what: you’ve just increased the shopkeeper’s revenue and
given the consultant a job. The sooner your area gets up to speed
with open-source software, the better you can compete.”
When I put it this way, most of Senator Atkinson’s constituents
became suddenly extremely supportive of this bill. My impression is
that they really could use a better avenue to sell their products,
and having their local government privy to open-source would
definitely be helpful as information and expertise seeped from the
local agencies to the general public.
For Senator Atkinson’s part, it turns out he knows a thing or
two about economic development. He co-chaired a very successful
Senate Special Committee that looked at ways to stimulate economic
growth and job stimulus for Oregon. You may find that report
here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/commsrvs/econ_jobreport.pdf
Surely he would understand how open-source software could
stimulate economic growth in Oregon.
It took me three weeks of phone calls and emails to finally meet
Sen. Atkinson, but ultimately my persistence payed off: I had 15
minutes to meet with him on my birthday, Tuesday, July 22.
Unfortunately a cycling accident (I like to keep in shape) left
me with my arm in a sling just one day before our appointment.
While the pain was intense, I managed to make it to the meeting.
It turns out that Atkinson was a cyclist too and seemed concerned
and understanding.
Through the Vicodin prescribed to me by my doctor, I gave
Senator Atkinson the “Open Source Impact” CD I had created for him
and had managed to persuade him to sign the letter that would
commission the Legislative Council to re-draft an open-source
consideration Bill.
I have since made several visits to the capitol and urged
(without being a pest) everyone who would listen to consider the
legislation.
Most of the Senators I have spoke with think that this bill is
reasonable and worthy of passage. The bill right now waits for the
Rules committee to schedule it for a hearing.
Some Senators offered insight into why the Legislation had not
gotten past the drafting stage, “this is a classic case of campaign
contributions and lobbyists deciding public policy. I think your
bill is a great idea, I think open-source is the future, and I’ll
speak with Jason about this,” one Senator told me after I had spoke
with him about the bill.
The Senator’s remarks are corroborated in an Oregonian article
by Sarah Wetherson, Research associate Money and Politics Research
Action Project. In her article published by the Oregonian she
writes,
“Lobbyists opposing HB2892 represent Microsoft, the American
Electronics Association and Initiative for Software Choice. In
2002, Microsoft gave $5,000 to the Ted Kulongoski campaign, and the
American Electronics Association gave just shy of $39,000 to
legislative candidates and $24,850 to the four leadership political
action committees that work to elect candidates for each
caucus.
Microsoft first registered as a lobbyist employer in Oregon in
2000 and has spent $39,000 since. The American Electronics
Association spent $372,476 from 1997 to 2002 to “influence state
legislation.”
You may view the full article here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1055506030260060.xml
In short, this Bill can only really be past with support from
you. The only way we can effectively fight for this legislation is
to firmly let our legislators know that open-source consideration
is really what Oregonians want through thoughtful emails, telephone
calls, and visits to the capitol.
Here is a list of the Senators on the Oregon Senate Rules
Committee. If you live in Oregon (especially in one of their
districts) I urge you to send an email or phone the Senators to let
them know that you would really like to see this bill move
forward.
Thank you all for your support. I’ll keep you posted.
Sen. Kate Brown, Co-Chair
Party: D District: 21
Capitol/Interim Phone: 503-986-1700
Capitol/Interim Address: 900 Court St. NE S-323, Salem OR 97301
Capitol Fax:503-986-1080
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/brown/
Sen. Jason Atkinson, Vice-Chair
Party: R District: 2
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1702
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-216, Salem OR 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/atkinson
Sen. Ginny Burdick, Vice-Chair
Party: D District: 18
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1718
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-317, Salem OR 97301
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/burdick/
Sen. Roger Beyer
Party: R District: 9
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1950
Interim Phone: 503-829-6910
Interim FAX: 503-986-1011
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-223, Salem OR 97301
Interim Address: 39486 S. Cooper Rd., Molalla OR 97038
Email Address: [email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/senaterepublican/
Sen. Tony Corcoran
Party: D District: 4
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1704
Interim Phone: 541-942-1213
Interim FAX: 541-942-1448
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE S-319, Salem OR 97301
Interim Address:34475 Kizer Creek Road, Cottage Grove OR 97424
Email Address:[email protected]
Interim Email Address:[email protected]
Web page Address: http://www.leg.state.or.us/corcoran/
Note: For complete documentation (basically in reverse
chronological order) on Oregon’s open-source Legislation, please
refer to the MWVLUG’s Legislation page here:
http://www.mwvlug.org/legislation/index.html
SB 941 itself is online in PDF format here: