Gov. Tina Kotek has removed a prominent anti-addiction advocate from a task force that will study higher alcohol taxes in the state, following outcry over a December Facebook post about the death of an Oregon brewer.
Mike Marshall, executive director of Oregon Recovers, confirmed Friday that Kotek has removed him from the state’s new Task Force on Alcohol Pricing and Addiction Services, which is likely to have a major say in whether the state increases taxes on beer, cider and wine as advocates like Marshall have called for for years.
Marshall had faced blowback from some critics since December, when he shared an article on Facebook about Wilsonville brewer Don Anderson dying suddenly of a heart attack.
Accompanying the post was a snippet of text Marshall pulled from Johns Hopkins that appeared to blame drinking for Anderson’s death. It read: “Heavy drinking is linked to a number of poor health outcomes, including heart conditions. Excessive alcohol intake can lead to high blood pressure, heart failure or stroke. Excessive drinking can also contribute to cardiomyopathy, a disorder that affects the heart muscle.”
Advertisement
Marshall eventually deleted the post, but not before spurring outcry. Ben Edmunds, president of the Oregon Brewers Guild, wrote that Marshall’s post was “crass” and accused him of dancing on Anderson’s grave.
Not long after, Edmunds sent a letter to Kotek demanding that Marshall be removed from the alcohol task force. The letter contended that Marshall “used social media to publicly denigrate [Anderson], humiliating his family and making false and unsupported assumptions about his death.”
“How can you ask other members of the Task Force on Alcohol Pricing and Addiction Services to serve alongside someone who is lacking a moral compass, baseline compassion, and respect for our fellow Oregonians?” Edmunds wrote in the Dec. 8 letter. “No one deserves this kind of treatment.”
Asked about the governor’s decision, Kotek’s office provided correspondence on the matter between Marshall and Constantin Severe, a public safety adviser to Kotek. It showed that Severe first raised the Facebook post with Marshall in late December in a phone call requesting that Marshall offer a new staff member from Oregon Recovers to serve on the task force.
Severe’s call inspired a lengthy and fiery response from Marshall, who suggested he’d been blindsided by the call. Marshall contended that he was only offering factual information about the health impacts of alcohol, and that the social media post was being cynically weaponized by members of the alcohol industry who shouldn’t have had access to his Facebook page in the first place.
Advertisement
“Don’t be fooled. Their opposition to my inclusion on the Task Force is not about a single Facebook post,” Marshall wrote in a letter to Severe. “This is about five years of effective public education about the harm the alcohol industry is causing Oregon families—advocacy that has forced them to the table for the first time in 50 years. Of course they want me replaced.”
Marshall also included a veiled threat, suggesting removing him from the task force could blow up in Kotek’s face.
“If I were to be replaced there would likely be multiple stories about the composition of the task force, its mission, the role campaign contributions played in its formation, and possibly even the personal life of Mr. Anderson,” Marshall wrote. “None of that is in anyone’s interest. Likewise, the news that I was replaced at the request of the beer industry will create significant backlash within the public health community.”
According to the governor’s office, Marshall did not step down or offer a replacement by Thursday, when Severe sent a letter removing him from the task force.
“We understand that you have chosen not to resign or identify another person from Oregon Recovers to take your place, so I am writing to inform you that you are being removed from the Task Force effective immediately,” Severe wrote. “We will be seeking a replacement from within the recovery community for the position you held.”
Advertisement
Marshall said Friday that Oregon Recovers has recommended the group’s law clerk, Andrew Swanson, to serve on the task force.
One of the potential statewide measures vying for the November ballot is calling it quits.
FILE – The rainbow flag, also known as the gay pride flag, is a symbol of LGBT and queer pride, left, along with the transgender flag, right, pictured in 2022.
Advertisement
Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB
A coalition led by the ACLU of Oregon, Basic Rights Oregon and Planned Parenthood has announced it is ending a campaign to amend the Oregon Constitution to guarantee the right to health care for transgender people, abortion and same-sex marriage.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights in Oregon had hoped to follow the lead of New York state, which passed a similar measure, Proposition 1, by a wide margin in 2024. They’ve been gathering signatures to qualify an initiative for the November ballot, promoting the measure at Pride events, and raising money.
But on Friday, the coalition announced via an Instagram post that the campaign is over. The coalition thanked community members for their support. It did not offer any explanation as to what led to the change of heart.
“This is a particularly difficult time, as the federal government continues attacking our rights, freedom, and basic humanity,” the post concludes. “We still firmly believe that together, we will build an Oregon where all of us can be who we are, and make our own decisions about our lives and bodies, and access the care that we need.”
Advertisement
The initiative petition had been endorsed by dozens of left-leaning organizations, including heavyweight labor unions like the AFL-CIO and SEIU Local 503.
Campaign finance records show the coalition’s biggest cash expenditures this year — $177,750 — were for polling and surveys.
The measure, known as Equal Rights for All or Initiative 33, had already faced a rocky path to the ballot. Democratic lawmakers had planned to refer it to voters in 2024, but dropped that plan in a deal to end a six-week long walkout by Republicans.
The political action committee supporting the measure has about $130,000 in cash remaining in its accounts.
Oregon law is already protective of gender-affirming care, requiring insurers and the state’s Medicaid program to cover it when it is medically necessary. Abortion is also covered by public and private insurance and Oregon places no specific gestational limit on it.
Advertisement
But those policies could change if the balance of power in Salem shifts.
As it is, the Oregon Constitution prohibits discrimination on account of sex. The proposed measure expanded on that, stating that discrimination is also prohibited based on pregnancy, gender identity and sexual orientation.
It would have also repealed language in the state constitution that bans same-sex marriage. Oregon voters approved that ban in 2004. The provision has been void since 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.
Sign up today for OPB’s “First Look” – your daily guide to the most important news and culture stories from around the Northwest.
The decision leaves in place a permanent injunction from November that blocked troops from deploying to Portland.
FILE – The James R. Browning United States Courthouse building, a courthouse for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is seen in San Francisco on Jan. 8, 2020.
Jeff Chiu / AP
Advertisement
The Trump administration no longer wants to appeal the decision of a federal judge in Oregon that blocked the president from deploying National Guard troops to Portland.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice told a federal appeals court last week they’re no longer interested in challenging the permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut, which found the president’s attempt to send troops to Portland violated the Constitution.
Late Thursday, attorneys for Oregon, California and the City of Portland, who had previously won the case, indicated they too were ready to let the case go without a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
A panel of 11 judges had been preparing to hear oral arguments on the case in June in Seattle. For Immergut’s ruling to officially stand, those appellate judges still need to sign off on the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case.
Attorneys for the Trump administration used little more than a single sentence in its filing expressing the federal government’s desire to halt its appeal.
Advertisement
Colleagues say Oregon judge who blocked Trump troop deployment is ‘well-respected’ and ‘has no fear’
The government’s reversal marks the end of a chapter, one that began on Sept. 27 when President Donald Trump announced he was sending 200 National Guard troops to Oregon’s largest city. The idea was to help guard federal properties, particularly the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland that has been the site of ongoing protests.
Legal fights over the president’s domestic military deployment also played out in Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and Chicago, as the president pushed the bounds of executive power in court.
Trump’s efforts ultimately withered in Portland after Immergut found the Trump administration not only violated federal law, but also the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, one that preserves the rights of the states to hold powers not explicitly given to the federal government.
This is the decision the Trump administration appealed to the 9th Circuit in November. Those judges said that before the appeal moved forward, they wanted to wait to see how a similar case from Illinois would play out at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Advertisement
Several weeks later, they got their answer when the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s efforts to send troops into Chicago.
In the case over Portland, attorneys for Oregon, California and the city indicated they would be willing to sign off on a dismissal too, so long as the 9th Circuit tells Immergut to monitor and enforce the 106-page permanent injunction she issued in November.
“In light of the President’s continued threats to send troops to Portland, the courts must stay involved,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. “If the Ninth Circuit chooses to dismiss the appeals, it should instruct the district court to keep monitoring and enforcing the permanent injunction in this case — to make sure that the President follows the law.”
Even after the Supreme Court ruling in Illinois, Trump has continued to express his willingness to use the military in American cities, and Portland in particular.
“We can go back,” Trump told reporters about Portland on Jan. 4, while aboard Air Force One. “We’re allowed to go back in.”
Advertisement
Sign up today for OPB’s “First Look” – your daily guide to the most important news and culture stories from around the Northwest.
Abiqua Falls, a 92-foot cascade and the surrounding 40-acre property, is up for sale.
How do you determine a price for one of Oregon’s most spectacular natural wonders?
We’re about to find out.
Advertisement
Abiqua Falls, a stunning and frequently visited waterfall outside Scotts Mills, is up for sale in what may be an unprecedented situation.
In a state where the vast majority of scenic places are on public lands, the sale of a 92-foot waterfall that roars into an amphitheater of basalt is unheard of.
“I couldn’t find anything similar to this situation, at least of this magnitude,” said Lisa Johnson, the managing principal broker for Horsepower Real Estate, one of the two companies working on the sale.
The waterfall is on 40 acres that have been owned by Mount Angel Abbey, and more recently the Abbey Foundation of Oregon, since 1908. Public access has long been allowed, even as the waterfall’s popularity skyrocketed as pictures of it spread across social media.
Advertisement
“We’ve been very proud to oversee (Abiqua Falls) for such a long period of time. It’s such a lovely place and so many people have had incredible experiences there,” said Amanda Staggenborg, spokeswoman for Mount Angel Abbey & Seminary.
Staggenborg said the Abbey Foundation has been in talks to sell or trade the land for at least a decade, including with the Bureau of Land Management.
But after those efforts didn’t bear fruit, the trustees decided to put it up for sale on Feb. 2.
Advertisement
“Really, it was just time,” Staggenborg said. “We knew it wasn’t a situation that could last forever. It’s time for the land to be protected under new ownership who can better serve the public interest.”
The sale of Abiqua Falls
The sale of Abiqua Falls is being conducted in an “auction style format without a preset asking price or reserve, allowing the market to determine value,” Johnson said.
In other words, anyone can make an offer, and there’s no baseline price to use as a reference point. Johnson advised anyone interested to make an offer and submit it through a realtor — similar to the way you would buy a house.
“Parties wishing to make an offer may do so at any time using standard written offer documents and submitting them to the listing agent,” she said.
Advertisement
Johnson said that visits to the property could be arranged.
The sale is being carried out by Cushman and Wakefield Land Advisory Group and Horsepower Real Estate.
Johnson said there isn’t a specific timeline for getting the offers in, and that the Abbey Foundation would take its time to “do its due diligence” on each offer.
“The seller reserves the right to review, negotiate, and accept an offer at its discretion,” the Abby Foundation said.
Will public access to Abiqua Falls be maintained?
Staggenborg said that since word of the sale got out, she heard a lot of concern that a buyer could come in and close off access.
Advertisement
“That is not what we would like to see,” she said. “We are hoping for somebody to keep the property in its current state and continue the same sort of public access that we’ve allowed for over 100 years.”
However, there is no “conditional requirement” that the buyer keep it public.
“There’s no condition on the bid,” Staggenborg said. She added that the trustees would consider the monetary offer and a buyer’s plans in making a decision.
The property is zoned as forested, a designation “intended to preserve natural resources and limit intensive development,” the property listing says.
Staggenborg also stressed that Oregon has laws, known as recreational immunity, that prevent landowners from being sued when they open their land to recreation at no cost. Those laws were strengthened during the 2024 and 2025 legislative session.
Advertisement
Oregon agencies say they’re not interested
Whoever purchases the property will face some challenges. The site has difficult access issues including a rough road, ill-defined trail and wonky cables along the creek. Its massive popularity has meant plenty of people get lost and injured.
This past May, a 22-year-old Utah man was rescued after leaping off the falls. A few whitewater kayakers have also made news after plunging off the falls.
Public lands advocate Ryan Ernst said he hoped it would ultimately be a local or state agency that took over managing the property, if not eventually BLM, to ensure it stays public and maybe sees some improvements.
“My hope is that the state can find a way to acquire this special and unique place where the public can continue to find nature and themselves,” he said. “It would be a shame to see it fall into the hands of a private entity where access would be changed.”
Advertisement
But Oregon agencies don’t seem to be in a hurry to make a bid.
The Oregon Department of Forestry, which manages the nearby Santiam State Forest, said in a statement that it’s not looking to acquire new land. The Oregon Department of State Lands also said it won’t be pursuing purchase of Abiqua Falls because the property “would not likely be a strong investment for the Common School Fund.”
The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, likewise, said it hadn’t had talks to purchase the waterfall.
Travis Williams, executive director of the Willamette River Preservation Trust, which is based in Scotts Mills near Abiqua Falls, said he’d talked to the Abbey about the property and was disappointed by their decision to put it up for sale.
He said a local land trust would be a good option to manage such a complex site, and that putting it up for sale in this way makes it seem like “it’s all about the money.”
Advertisement
“Whoever buys it is going to have to really care about that place and the local community – I think they could have handled this better,” he said. “And no matter what, whoever buys this is going to have to contend with the fact that people will be there no matter what.”
Zach Urness has been an outdoors reporter in Oregon for 18 years and is host of the Explore Oregon Podcast. He can be reached at zurness@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6801. Find him on X at @ZachsORoutdoors and BlueSky at oregonoutdoors.bsky.social
