Talk:Oregon Forest Resources Institute/Archive 1

This article contains biased information about the Oregon Forest Resources Institute
As a representative of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute, I would like to propose that this article about our organization be written in a neutral, unbiased manner per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This article currently contains a fair amount of biased and outdated information, including several references that say they go to OFRI's website but do not work.

The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is not a forestry trade association or a de facto lobbying organization. It is a state agency created by the Oregon Legislature in 1991 to enhance and provide support to Oregon's forest products industry. Per Oregon Revised Statute 526.640, this includes increasing public understanding of the practice of forestry and the use and benefits of forest products, and supporting education and cooperative efforts among private forest landowners and within the forest products industry to:

(a)Practice good stewardship of the land, and protect water and other public resources to the maximum extent practicable;

(b)Encourage the conversion of underproductive rural lands to forest uses, and provide information to private landowners on the means to facilitate such conversions;

(c)Encourage, facilitate and assist private forest landowners to meet or exceed state and federal regulations governing forest operations;

(d)Evaluate and communicate to private forest landowners the stewardship responsibility expectations of the public; and

(e)In cooperation with the State Forestry Department, Oregon State University and other appropriate government or private entities, serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of information to private forest landowners, through conferences, workshops and other means, about modern land management practices.

Furthermore, OFRI's statute prohibits lobbying per ORS 526.650.

A number of the references used in this article, which in several cases are being used to back up biased and misleading statements, say they go to OFRI's website, but the links no longer work. The correct reference links are as follows:

1. https://oregonforests.org/about-ofri

2. https://oregonforests.org/people

3. https://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/OFRI_2022-AnnualReport_DIGITAL.pdf

5. https://oregonforests.org/content/rediscovery-forest-maps

I have a conflict of interest and therefore shouldn't edit this page, but I ask that unbiased Wikipedia editors consider revising this page using functioning reference links to our website and OFRI's founding statute to more accurately describe the agency and the work that it does.

Thank you. OreForests (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, OFRI's statue may prohibit lobbying, but apparently, the independent sources cited in the article indicate that the OFRI violated that statute, resulting in investigations and funding cuts. Further, none of the material in the article that is negative toward the OFRI is referenced to their website; all of the criticisms are referenced to independent sources. If the information in the article is not true, you have the burden of proof to produce reliable sources indicating that it is not true. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * References to the OFRI website go to broken links and the information included in the article is outdated such as using stats from the agency's 2009-2010 annual report, which does a disservice to Wikipedia users. This article also leaves out the results of the Secretary of State audit, what happened to the legislation that was pending in 2021 and OFRI's current response to the audit recommendations. OreForests (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can give specific details of content you would like to see changed, with citations to support, in the form of edit requests, uninvolved editors can review your specific requests and make changes as appropriate. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit request from OFRI

 * What I think should be changed (include citations):

Change description of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) at the very top of this article to "The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) is a state agency that provides forest and forest management education programs to for the general public, K-12 teachers and students, and forest landowners. (Citation: https://oregonforests.org/about-ofri) It was created by the Oregon Legislature in 1991 to support and enhance Oregon's forest products industry by advancing public understanding of the practice of forestry and the use and benefits of forest products." (Citation: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_526.640)

Change the the description of the OFRI board that says, "Its Board of Directors consists entirely of representatives from the timber industry," to "The Oregon State forester appoints the OFRI board’s 11 voting members. By statute, these include nine representatives of timber producer classes; one member representing small woodland owners; and one representative for forest industry employees. Non-voting members required by statute include the dean of the Oregon State University College of Forestry and a public member appointed jointly by the president of the Oregon Senate and the speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives." (Citations: https://oregonforests.org/people and https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_526.610)

Change the description of the Oregon Forest Literacy Plan from, "Slanted against concerns about the environment, clean drinking water, and global warming, its Oregon Forest Literacy Program includes a forest education conceptual framework correlated with state education standards that offer educators guidance for developing industry-friendly classroom lessons related to forests," to "OFRI's Oregon Forest Literacy Plan includes a forest education conceptual framework correlated with state education standards that offer educators guidance for developing classroom lessons related to forests." (Citation: https://learnforests.org/oregon-forest-literacy-program)

Delete the sentence in that says, "These campaigns are paid for with taxpayer dollars." OFRI's educational advertising campaigns are funded by forest products harvest tax payments. The agency does not receive any general fund money. (Citation: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_526.675)

Change title of "Lobbying" section to "Alleged Lobbying." (Citation: https://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2021-21.pdf)

Add more updated information to last section regarding the results of the audit, pending legislation in 2021 and OFRI's response to the audit. (Citations: https://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2021-21.pdf, https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/timber/audit-recommends-reforming-ofris-governing-statute/article_629e51dc-eb25-11eb-955d-8f34be407e72.html and https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/timber/ofri-provides-update-on-audit-recommendations/article_e05e2992-74c4-11ed-9116-4751064636ac.html)

Update the following reference links:

1. https://oregonforests.org/about-ofri

2. https://oregonforests.org/people

3. https://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/OFRI_2022-AnnualReport_DIGITAL.pdf

5. https://oregonforests.org/content/rediscovery-forest-maps


 * Why it should be changed:

The description of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) at the very top of this article that says, "The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) is a publicly-funded forestry trade organization. It operates as the state's de facto lobbying organization and has advocated against climate change research" is inaccurate. OFRI is not a forestry trade organization or a lobbying organization. It is a state agency created by the Oregon Legislature in 1991 to support and enhance Oregon's forest products industry by advancing public understanding of forests, forest management and forest products. It is also prohibited from lobbying by statute (Citation: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_526.650).

The description of the OFRI board is vague. The suggested change is a description of the board lifted directly from OFRI's statute, which is cited.

The description of the Oregon Forest Literacy Plan is inaccurate and gets the name wrong. It is the "Oregon Forest Literacy Plan" not the "Oregon Forest Literacy Program." Added a citation directly to the plan and a more accurate description of it.

"These campaigns are paid for with taxpayer dollars" is misleading. OFRI does not receive any general fund money. See the citation from the Institute's statute (https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_526.675).

By statute, OFRI is prohibited from lobbying (Citation: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_526.650). A media investigation alleged that former agency staff members participated in lobbying activity. A subsequent audit by the Oregon Secretary of State found that former employees participated in some risky activities, but it did not cross the line into lobbying. See citation to audit report (https://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2021-21.pdf).

The information in the Lobbying section is outdated. It ends in June 2021 and doesn't contain any updated information regarding the audit and pending legislation since then.

The links to OFRI's website in the references section are broken and need to be updated to ones that work and go to OFRI's current website.

OreForests (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of this makes sense, but some is obviously biased towards OreForests's organization, especially things OFRI would prefer not to be associated with. (lobbying and third-party comments about the Forest Literacy Plan)


 * Saying "the audit says it wasn't actually lobbying" is also a selective reading. Some quotes from the audit: "OFRI also coordinated with other participants during event planning who referred to Forest Sector Day as a lobbying event." "Between 2002 and 2013, OFRI registered the agency director and four board members as lobbyists."


 * Secondly, saying "the statute prohibits OFRI from lobbying" is discussed in that audit: "However, it is not clear from statute what OFRI is permitted or prohibited to do with regards to lobbying."


 * You say the lobbying section ends in June 2021. Do you have some neutral wording that would help update that?


 * Some updates from this edit request can go in, though it'll take some work to figure out what references or links go with which text- and generally third-party sources are highly preferred because of the inherent conflict of interest at oregonforests.org and learnforests.org. tedder (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering OFRI's edit request.
 * Our concern with this article is that it states people's opinions from the media articles it cites as fact, starting with incorrectly describing OFRI as a trade and lobbying organization, which it is not. If you read the entirety of these independent sources, you will find they actually do not support the applicable material posted--generally just repeated opinions and allegations. There are at least two specific examples that can be elaborated on: the alleged violation of the law, and alleged budget cuts. Both are inaccurate, and neither statement appears to be supported by the references to the burden of proof standard Wikipedia claims to require.
 * Factual statements about violating the law should require verifiable findings by the legal entity(ies) that enforce said laws. None of that appears in the article's independent references.
 * Factual statements about an organization's budget being reduced should require documentation of a budget cut actually occurring. The article only references a proposed budget cut that occurred during legislative deliberations. The final statutes and budgets that were passed by the Oregon legislature that year did not end up resulting in any cuts to the agency. And the public record of OFRI's actual approved budgets since the date of that reference also doesn't show any evidence of a budget cut as alleged in the article.
 * Since the "lobbying" section, which we still believe should be renamed, perhaps back to "controversy," ends in June 2021, here is a proposed update:
 * "House Bill 2357 passed the House, 32-27, but died in the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee when the legislature adjourned in June 2021, and no cuts were made to OFRI's budget. (Citation: https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/timber/audit-recommends-reforming-ofris-governing-statute/article_629e51dc-eb25-11eb-955d-8f34be407e72.html)
 * In July 2021, the Oregon Secretary of State Audits Division released its full audit report on OFRI (Citation: https://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2021-21.pdf). The audit called on state lawmakers to overhaul OFRI's governing statute to improve the agency’s objectivity. It also made several recommendations for the agency. These included enacting a policy to steer the agency's board and staff away from prohibited activities, adopting a single mission statement in line with OFRI's statutory requirements, updating the agency's strategic plan, enhancing its “transparency” by getting input from conservation groups and others about the agency’s work and including the agency’s statutory mandate in its educational materials, and consulting with the state’s Department of Justice and Department of Administrative Services as part of a "comprehensive review" of its governing statute and statewide policies.
 * OFRI agreed with the operational recommendations made in the audit and released a statement when the audit report was released saying that it had begun the process of implementing them. (Citation: https://oregonforests.org/node/826) In December 2022, the agency provided an update to the Secretary of State reporting that it was making progress implementing the recommendations from the 2021 audit. (Citation: https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/timber/ofri-provides-update-on-audit-recommendations/article_e05e2992-74c4-11ed-9116-4751064636ac.html)"
 * Thank you again for your consideration of this edit request. OreForests (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Recent edits to this article still leave out that HB 2357, which proposed cuts to OFRI's budget, died in the Oregon Senate. As a result, no cuts were made to OFRI's budget. Without this crucial detail, a reader of this article may get the impression that cuts were made to OFRI's budget and that is not the case. This type of selective writing, which is used throughout the article, appears to be an intentional attack on OFRI from detractors of the agency. Again, we plead that the article be written from a more neutral point of view, per Wikipedia's own policy. OreForests (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am marking this edit request as "answered" while discussion continues. The original requested edit does not cite any third-party reliable sources (see WP:V), so it's not going to fly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have provided some third-party sources in my reply in the "Description of OFRI" section below. Jane at OFRI (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Description of OFRI is inaccurate and appears to be an attack on the agency
The description of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) at the top of this article is not true. OFRI is not forestry trade organization or the state's de facto lobbying organization. It is a state agency statutorily mandated to support and enhance Oregon's forest products industry. It does not participate in any lobbying and is prohibited from lobbying by statute. The way the current description is written, it appears to be an intentional attack on the agency from its detractors citing negative media coverage of the agency that is now several years old and does not reflect what OFRI is today. OreForests (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide third-party sources please. The 2020 OPB article cited literally has the title "How a public institute in Oregon became a de facto lobbying arm of the timber industry", it was prepared in partnership with ProPublica, and the page does not contain any stated retractions, as far as I can see. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. OPB and OFRI are tax-funded Oregon bodies. If they criticise you I think that is a stronger criticism than other sources would be. However you are correct that OFRI may be different now because several years have gone by. If you provide sources to that effect then we should certainly include both. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is OreForests under a new name that makes clear my conflict of interest with regards to the OFRI Wikipedia page (I'm an employee of the Institute). I did provide third-party sources (news articles) in the original edit request I made, but I will provide them again here, along with a couple more.
 * Here are several other third-party descriptions of OFRI that are very different from how it is described in the articles that were part of the OPB/Oregonian/Propublica investigation:
 * Oregon Secretary of State Blue Book: "The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) is statutorily mandated to support and enhance Oregon’s forest products industry. OFRI provides forest and forestry education programs for the general public, K-12 teachers and students, and forestland owners. The Institute is governed by a 13-member board and is funded by a portion of the forest products harvest tax. OFRI produces educational media and websites, as well as informational publications and videos. They host forest tours and symposiums covering an array of forest-related topics. OFRI is headquartered in Portland and has a satellite office and demonstration forest at the Oregon Garden in Silverton.​"
 * State Library of Oregon: "The Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI) was formed by the Legislature in 1991 to advance the public’s understanding of Oregon’s forests and forest resources. OFRI’s seven-member staff achieves this by offering a number of programs and publications."
 * Capital Press: "OFRI was created in 1991 by the Oregon Legislature to support the state's forest products industry through public outreach and landowner education. It is governed by a 13-member board of directors and funded by a portion of the state's Forest Products Harvest Tax."
 * The Capital Press also put out a couple of articles, which I cite in my original edit request, that provide some important missing information from the last section of the OFRI Wikipedia article (the section called "Lobbying".)
 * 1) That "House Bill 2357, passed the House, 32-27, but died in the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee."
 * 2) A more recent update from OFRI on how it is responding to the Oregon Secretary of State audit of the agency.
 * Thank you for considering my edit request. Jane at OFRI (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with adding these but I am unable to find anything which contradicts the negative statements we have here. I think we should use these to provide both sides. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This article mostly relies on a single source
Thank you to the editors who have considered my edit requests and including the citations I provided. As an employee of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute, I'm biased, but I think Wikipedia users would be better served if this article about the agency didn't almost exclusively rely on articles from the 2020 Oregonian/OPB/Propublica investigation of the Institute. There are other credible media outlets in Oregon that have written about the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (I've cited a couple examples above) and I'd encourage those sources to be included as well. Jane at OFRI (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)