Nearly four years ago – on April 21, 2004 – Gov. Ted Kulongoski visited John Day and unveiled a new plan and a new office to give rural Oregonians more clout and visibility in the halls of state government.

“Oregon is a state of great economic and geographic diversity – and I believe that our diversity should unite us, not divide us,” he said. “Government must meet the needs of all communities, both urban and rural. The new Office of Rural Policy will assist the state in better understanding the unique needs and issues of rural Oregon.”

The governor signed the office into being with an executive order inked during a meeting of the Eastern Oregon Regional Alliance, held in John Day.

It seemed a proud moment for an overlooked and misunderstood region. Yet today, the promise of that event has faded.

Not only is state closing the Office of Rural Policy, but it’s dismantling the regional investment program, and many of the regional alliances for economic development are expected to fold. The Southeast alliance likely will continue because of its secondary role overseeing transportation needs, but others will disband for lack of an economic purpose. Overall, this is a disheartening legacy for state leadership, and a slap in the face for rural – and particularly Eastern – Oregon.

Four years ago, the Office of Rural Policy was painted as a way to address what one state press release called “the particular hardship rural communities are facing during the current economic downturn.” The governor himself acknowledged the link between that hardship and the demise of traditional resource-based industries.

If anything, the downturn and its ripple effects have become more intense for the rural counties, but it seems the commitment to the rural areas has all but disappeared. As the housing industries’ woes surge through the urban areas, state officials have scuttled back to their comfort zones, primarily in Western Oregon, to bolster the defenses for the state’s more populous areas. Faced with a poor revenue forecast, the Legislature in February found a good excuse to cut regional investment funds, despite the program’s record of meeting state goals and fostering jobs in hard-pressed areas. That sent a clear message to rural Oregon: Fend for yourselves – maybe we’ll see you when the good times return.

Meanwhile, the rural counties continue to deal with mandates from Salem, a fleet of state agencies that issue rules for lands they’ve never seen, and a paucity of power in the halls of government.

So was there ever any real commitment to rural Oregon? Or was this rural outreach just a bone to throw to rural voters?

Granted, the Office of Rural Policy was not perfect in its execution. It’s mission may have been overbroad, making it difficult to achieve measurable results. However, it was a portal that offered rural Oregon governments more access and a greater voice to air their concerns in Salem.

It could be argued that rural leaders bear some responsibility for not taking advantage of that portal more aggressively from the get-go, but that’s a little like blaming poor people for the existence of poverty. Being isolated from Salem is one of the rural areas’ particular challenges; they shouldn’t be expected to ramp up state attentiveness from afar.

Four years ago, one of the major needs was to identify and address the unintended consequences of state actions on rural areas. The idea was simple – that what works in Gresham may not work in Long Creek. Simple as it sounds, that’s not a one-time message and then everyone gets it. The Office of Rural Policy was intended to help press that case, rule by rule and law by law, and that’s a need that still exists.

Rural policy offices work well in other states, and there are models out there for creating an effective office to advocate for the rural perspective. It’s too bad that state officials opted to scrap this model, rather than fine-tune and strengthen it. The governor’s office said last week it will review the revenue picture in June with hopes for resurrecting a rural policy office. The rural counties should hold them to that. The question remains as to whether shutdown leaves a taint of failure that will be too hard to overcome in the next biennium.