The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
Michael Dunne: I'm Michael Dunne. Many staff positions within city government are pretty standard and even mundane: parks director, public works director, etc. But right now, there's one position causing a tremendous amount of controversy in the city of Bend, that of diversity director. In the recent past, two directors have abruptly left their positions, and the circumstances are anything but mundane. Accusations have been flying. A major payment from the city has come to pass, and there's still no clarity on what happens next. Today on the show, you'll hear from a Bend Bulletin reporter about this story, then in the second half of the show, you'll hear about how leading Oregon politicians are saying no to Trump's SAVE AMERICA Act.
Dunne: Clayton Franke, a reporter with The Bend Bulletin. Clayton, always good to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on.
Clayton Franke: Thanks for having me.
Dunne: I read your recent article titled "Bend Lays Out New Equity Plan Amid Fallout From Director's Resignation." Why don't you give our audience an overview of what's been going on at the city of Bend regarding its efforts on equity and inclusion?
Franke: Yeah, this is an ongoing story that we've been following. It goes back to the fall of 2025, when the city's director of the equity and accessibility department resigned. In a resignation letter that came out later, he cited discrimination, mistreatment and an inequitable environment, and the city eventually reached a settlement agreement with him. Since then, there's been fallout from both the resignation and the information that came out, as well as a follow-up report that the city of Bend produced that essentially discredited the equity director and cleared the city of wrongdoing. Since then, we've seen other staff members of color resign, some pushback from the city DEI Advisory Committee, and a new plan from the city administration that they hope will provide a better structure to support a future equity director and equity staff.
Dunne: What has the city said about the environment there? As you said, they found fault with the equity director who left, and they reached a settlement. But have they talked about what's going on with regard to staff? As I read your article, I saw that some staffers and certainly community members have talked about a problem environment.
Franke: They have said they are committed to continuing diversity and equity work, despite some of the pressure from the federal government and even other local governments in Central Oregon, which have removed equity-specific work from their plans. Bend has basically denied backsliding on DEI at all. And I think the city has acknowledged that Bend and Central Oregon can be a difficult place for people of color, especially at the city, where staff is majority white and the region is becoming more diverse.
Dunne: And then, of course, the flip side of that is: what are community members saying? I know there are groups that are very angry with what the city has done, and reading your article, it sounds like there's a sense from community organizations that a lot needs to change. Talk a little bit about that.
Franke: I think there's a range of reactions. People were upset with the report that the city produced, which didn't validate any of the discrimination claims made by the former equity director. They wish the city had taken a different approach to addressing those claims. Some of the reactions go so far as a new petition being circulated calling for the removal of the city manager. Some people feel that even with this new equity plan, the current city administration, given the way things have gone the past couple of months, is not up to the task of restructuring the city in a way that will support future equity work.
Dunne: I know this is a staffing issue that resides at the city manager level. But what have some of the publicly elected officials, some of the council members, said about this whole situation?
Franke: There was a city council meeting in the past couple of months where the new plan was presented. I think people on the council recognize this is a tough position. We heard one city council member, Gina Franzosa, say she's concerned about filling the equity director role, which is now going to be more closely tied to the city manager's office, hopefully for more support. She expressed concerns about departmental leadership getting on board and supporting the equity director. There was also some concern from city council about how the city should approach future personnel investigations that involve identity-based claims. So there are concerns, but also general support for the new structure.
Dunne: What specifically is the equity director supposed to do? Is part of the job retention and recruitment of more people of color into the governmental staffing structure, or is it more about making the city structure as it exists more DEI-friendly, for lack of a better phrase?
Franke: I think it's one part of the job. I'm not exactly sure how the role will change under the new structure, but it has partially involved leading what's called the Human Rights and Equity Commission, which is a policy advisory commission. That means ensuring city policies, whether on new fees, transportation projects or housing, have input from the committee that's advising on diversity and equity, and that the council stays in touch with communities who might be impacted differently by those policies. Another part of the role involves outreach to historically marginalized communities to make sure their input gets incorporated. That's not the full scope of the position, but those are the internal roles I understand.
Dunne: Is what's happening now impacting the business that the city needs to get done?
Franke: I haven't heard specifically, but one thing the city manager mentioned at the meeting where he presented the new plan was that diversity work takes real effort, and the city of Bend has a lot on its plate. There are climate goals, housing goals, and a ton of transportation projects. He mentioned to the city council that depending on how much time and resources the city wants to dedicate to diversity and equity work, they may have to remove some other goals from their work plan for the next five years.
Dunne: Is this in some ways growing pains for a community that grows as fast as Bend, maybe still finding its political footing in a new era?
Franke: Yeah, I think that could be right. It's definitely changing a lot. We're seeing more diversity, even though it's still less diverse than other parts of the state. But it's probably accurate to say that Bend, as it's growing, is still something of an urban bubble in Central Oregon.
Dunne: He's Clayton Franke, reporter with The Bend Bulletin. Clayton, always appreciate talking to you.
Franke: Thanks so much.
Dunne: Now let's hear Oregon's reaction to the SAVE AMERICA Act. Note: Right after this taping, Sen. Merkley informed reporters that Republicans in the Senate inserted language into the act that would effectively ban mail-in voting.
Dunne: Alex Baumhardt, reporter with The Oregon Capitol Chronicle. Alex, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on.
Alex Baumhardt: Thanks for having me.
Dunne: I read your article about the press conference you attended with Sen. Wyden and Secretary of State Reed about the SAVE AMERICA Act. Let's start with the basics: Would you remind folks what the SAVE AMERICA Act is and what it would do?
Baumhardt: Sure. It's an iteration of a bill that Republicans in Congress have proposed multiple times. It's presented as a voter integrity and election integrity bill. The idea is that it sets heightened requirements for proof of citizenship when you register to vote and when you submit your ballot. Proponents say this will ensure fair and free elections. But most other people, including our state's senior election official and election officials in many other states, say we already have very fair and free elections of great integrity. There's really no evidence to support the idea that large numbers of non-citizens are voting. The notion of having to show a birth certificate or passport just to register would be burdensome enough. But in Oregon, where most people vote by mail, you would also have to send in proof of citizenship to request a ballot and then again when you submit your ballot. Our Secretary of State, Tobias Reed, has been very clear: this is not an election integrity bill. It is a voter suppression bill.
Dunne: So if I'm hearing you right, especially for those of us in Oregon who overwhelmingly enjoy voting by mail, if this were to pass, it would require all of us to do several extra steps. Is that correct?
Baumhardt: Yes. Right now, the overwhelming majority of Oregonians get registered to vote when they renew their driver's license. The state already has your most recent address. It makes sense, especially if you want to encourage your population to vote. Under the SAVE AMERICA Act, you would have to go into a DMV or county clerk's office with your passport or birth certificate. Of course, not a lot of people know where their birth certificate is, and fewer than half of Americans have a passport. So you're asking people to be great custodians of all their documents. For people who have changed their name, such as adoptees or women who changed their last name after marriage, a name that doesn't match your birth certificate is going to cause problems. But let's say you do all that and register. Then when you go to request a ballot by mail, you have to include a photocopy of your ID. And when you receive the ballot and send it in, you have to include proof of ID again. All of this requires a lot more lead time. Right now, I can drop my ballot at a county collection box or hand it to the U.S. Postal Service and I'm done. My ballot comes in the mail because I'm registered, and I registered when I renewed my license. The SAVE AMERICA Act makes all of this far more cumbersome. The net result: you disenfranchise voters. People just won't vote.
Dunne: At this event, you had a state official, Tobias Reed, Secretary of State, and a federal official, our senior U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, coming together to talk about this. What was their aim? Education about how bad this is, in their view, or also a call to action?
Baumhardt: I think it was a bit of both. Wyden has vowed to fight this, and he's been fighting it in the Senate. As of now, it seems unlikely to pass the Senate, but it already passed in the House, which tells you how far apart those two chambers have grown. I think they were trying to raise awareness. The real catch is this: as it stands, the bill is unlikely to pass. President Trump has said he will not sign any more legislation until this act passes. So there are efforts to attach it to other must-pass funding bills, essentially making it a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. The reality is, if it doesn't pass, which is the more likely outcome, what Reed and others have warned is that Trump, come the fall, will claim that if the midterm elections go unfavorably for Republicans, it's because the elections weren't fair, and they would have been fairer, he'll say, if the SAVE AMERICA Act had passed. So it's a catch-22: the bill won't pass, and then the administration gets to cast doubt on election results. On the other hand, if it did pass, you've already undermined the integrity of your elections. As Reed said, you're literally asking state election clerks and officials to completely overhaul their registration and ballot infrastructure in the middle of a midterm cycle.
Dunne: A couple of numbers worth noting. As you said, it most likely won't pass the Senate, and I assume that's because it can't pass with a simple Republican majority and needs 60 votes. Then there's the question of federal versus state authority. If this were to pass, could Reed and Gov. Kotek say they simply won't follow it? How does that play out?
Baumhardt: It's a great question, and one I still don't fully understand. You'd think secretaries of state would be more defiant about rejecting federal direction on elections. As far as I can gather from what Reed said at the news conference, the answer is: we'll go to court if it passes. The Constitution clearly gives states authority over their own elections, and it would become a litigated matter that would no doubt reach the Supreme Court. Oregon is already fighting on this front. The state Department of Justice and Secretary Reed have fought against the Trump administration's attempt to obtain Oregon's voter rolls. Oregon was among several states targeted by the administration demanding those voter rolls be turned over. A federal judge in U.S. District Court in Eugene ruled that the state does not need to comply. So, as with most things involving this administration, you ask yourself: isn't that illegal? And then it gets litigated. The judiciary is really the only branch currently testing the limits of executive power. It's kind of all we have.
Dunne: And certainly, as we've seen from Attorney General Rayfield, he's not shy about suing the federal government. He's been something of a national leader on that front, hasn't he?
Baumhardt: Yes, him and California Attorney General Rob Bonta are leading the lawsuit charge. And it helps that they are both actually lawyers. You don't have to be a lawyer to serve as attorney general.
Dunne: Yeah, that's always interesting. One thing I'm sure many listeners are thinking about right now: the president often says, without evidence and contrary to what has been debunked in every court imaginable, that he won the 2020 election. He didn't. The facts are clear. But if I'm hearing everything right, that claim undergirds the entire SAVE AMERICA Act. Is that roughly correct?
Baumhardt: Yeah. All of this is about sowing just a sliver of doubt. When you continue to cast doubt on the results of an election and on the integrity of state elections, it becomes a persistent problem. Secretary of State Reed does a good job explaining that the state tests its systems, audits the machines, and works closely with county clerks who run elections. There are systems in place to ensure elections are free and fair. On one hand, secretaries of state like Reed are having to come out and really explain how elections work so people can feel more confident. That confidence hadn't been rattled before this president made it seem like there was a widespread problem. There's no reason to suggest there's massive non-citizen voting in Oregon or any other state. We know that because states audit their voter rolls. These are election experts. This is their full-time job. The administration is working hard to sow doubt, and there's a huge body of evidence showing that doubt is not warranted.
Dunne: It used to be that midterm elections were fairly quiet affairs. That certainly won't be the case this time. Alex, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on.
Baumhardt: Thank you so much, Michael.
Dunne: That's the show for today. All episodes of Oregon on the Record are available as a podcast at KLCC.org. Tomorrow on the show, you'll hear from a former University of Oregon student who won an Oscar for a groundbreaking documentary and is out with a sequel. I'm Michael Dunne, host of Oregon on the Record. Thanks for listening.
