CANNON BEACH Sue Meyers might have glanced at the opinions expressed about the initiative measures in prior Oregon Voters Pamphlets, but she rarely read them in depth.

However, since her weeklong experience with the Citizens Initiative Review, which delved into ballot Measure 82, she will take those opinions more seriously.

It gave me a new respect for the voters pamphlet, said Meyers. I think a lot of people dont read it. They just listen to television ads.

The Citizens Initiative Review is sponsored by Healthy Democracy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to provide information to voters about initiatives on the ballot.

This is the first year that the Citizens Initiative Review has conducted an official review of ballot measures. It conducted a demonstration project on one ballot measure in 2008 and a pilot in 2010 after the Legislature, in 2009, approved the proposal as a permanent process to review initiative ballot measures in elections.

Oregon is the only state in the nation that has such a process, according to Tony Iaccarino, policy and projects director for Healthy Democracy.

This year, Citizens Initiative Review panels studied two ballot measures. Measure 85 proposes allocating revenue from corporate income and excise tax kicker refunds to the general fund for K-12 public education.

Measure 82 proposes amending the Oregon constitution to allow privately owned casinos if they meet certain criteria. That measure is accompanied by Ballot Measure 83, which would authorize the operation of a casino, called The Grange, at the former Multnomah Kennel Club in Wood Village.

Meyers, who is the motel manager of Lands End at Cannon Beach, first learned of the review in May when she received a letter asking if she wanted to participate on a panel that would review one ballot measure for a week in August.

I checked to see if I had that week free, and I did. I sent back a reply saying I was interested and forgot all about it, Meyers said. Then I got a letter saying, We picked you.

Meyers was one of the 800 people who responded to the letter, sent to a random sample of 10,000 registered voters, Iaccarino said.

The information provided by the 800 respondents, including their party affiliation, ethnicity, gender, age, education level, voting frequency and place of residence, was put into a data base and sorted.

We ended up with a 24-member panel that was almost a perfect representation of the registered voter population in Oregon, Iaccarino said.

In party representation, for example, 42 percent of Oregonians are Democrats; 32 percent are Republicans; and 26 percent are nonpartisan, Independents and other. On the panel, there were 10 Democrats; eight Republicans; and six who represented the category of nonpartisans, Independents and others.

Meyers was the only person from the North Coast to participate on that panel, although areas on the central and south coasts were represented as well.

We had a wide range of ages, from one gal barely out of high school who had never voted to a grandma in her 70s, Meyers said.

The panelists were paid $150 a day, as well as the cost of transportation, hotel rooms and lunch, said Iaccarino, who estimated that it cost $100,000 each to conduct the two reviews.

None of the funding for the reviews is at taxpayers expense, Iaccarino said. Contributions come from charitable organizations and individuals. However, donations arent accepted from corporations, union treasuries or political action committees, he said.

We were asked to come with an open mind and to keep an open mind for the week, Meyers said. It was like a jury: We werent allowed to talk to the other people about the topic.

She called the experience of spending eight hours a day for a week on one measure fascinating.

After learning the procedures on the first day, testing out a simulation exercise and being introduced to the measure, the panelists began studying Measure 82 in depth.

They heard presentations from the measures sponsors and opponents, they prepared questions and were able to request experts to come and answer those questions. Then, the panelists listed key findings and prepared them for inclusion in the voters pamphlet.

It was overwhelming, Meyers said. They threw a lot at us letters from people on both sides, statistics, graphs, a lot of reading. I felt like I was back in college.

Speakers the panelists talked to during the week included The Granges developer and the campaign manager; a representative from the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, operators of the Spirit Mountain Casino; Oregon Lottery representatives; economics experts knowledgeable in gambling issues and addiction; two state economists; security personnel; and the Native American Affairs coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice, among others.

It was interesting when the experts didnt agree, said Meyers.

For instance, the economists, she said, could only project how much income the casino might earn, but they couldnt agree on how the casino might affect nearby businesses that already had video poker machines.

Iaccarino said the Healthy Democracy organizers want the panelists to have the resources the Legislature has. Legislative committees can call experts to testify about a proposed bill, they deliberate on it, draft statements, have the statements reviewed by experts and either accept or ignore the experts recommendations.

Panelists remark on how they gain a new appreciation about how complex the issues are. But they also express confidence in their knowledge about an issue, Iaccarino said.

At the end of the week, 17 of the 24 panelists recommended that voters oppose the measure. Meyers and six others, however, supported it.

She said she understood why critics would be concerned about The Granges social impact, problem gamblers and possibly more crime, but she believed the benefits outweighed the potential problems.

The casino will be built with sustainable materials, will provide millions of dollars in tax revenue and it will provide more entertainment than gambling, she said. A water park, bowling alley and movie theatre also are planned on the site of the former Multnomah Kennel Club.

I think it will be a top-notch tourist attraction that people will want to go to, Meyers said.

After hearing discussions from an expert on gambling addictions, Meyers decided that the proposed casino wouldnt worsen the problem. The state also has a fund to help people with gambling addictions, she said, and the new casino would be paying into that fund.

People who want to gamble theyre going to find a way to do that, she said.

In addition, Meyers added, the Oregon State Police couldnt provide the facts that proved the casino would create more crime.

Although some economists said that area businesses with video poker machines would lose money and the state would see a reduction in proceeds from those machines, Meyers disagreed.

People who go to their local bar to play video poker arent going to change their ways, she said, noting that those bars and restaurants are usually where their friends hang out, too.

The state stands to gain $32 million to $54 million in revenue from the casino, Meyers added.

Although Ballot Measure 82 allows private casinos in the state, they wont go in automatically, Meyers said. Ballot Measure 83 requires voters in a community where a casino is proposed to approve the casino first.

They have the option to say, not in my backyard, Meyers said.

After the experience with the Citizens Initiative Review, she said she was interested in watching the television commercials both supporting and opposing the casino.

The ones against it were trying to appeal to peoples morals and feelings. But they dont have the facts to back them up, where the pro side does, Meyers said.

When the casinos proponents, sensing that it would be defeated easily, suspended their campaign, Meyers was unhappy.

Im really disappointed, she said. Im going to contact the campaign manager and Im going to write to the governor about his commercial.

In his commercial, Gov. John Kitzhaber urges voters to defeat the measure and says it is being proposed by a foreign company. The Granges primary investors are two Canadian companies that have partnered with two Lake Oswego investors.

I thought it was a great project, Meyers said about The Grange. I almost want to do a grassroots effort and form a citizens group to support it. I think people are misinformed and are making a decision based on fear and emotion. Theyre not looking at it from a business standpoint.