We’re three-quarters of the way through February. I know — we all know — that we need more rain (much more rain), but it’s still encouraging to see signs of spring all around us.

Hans Boyle at the Gazette-Times has an update on the effort to recall all seven members of the Corvallis School Board. Petitioners are working to gather the required 4,577 signatures to put each recall question on the May ballot; that’s a tough hurdle to jump, as it should be.

We’ve talked before about Oregon law surrounding recall elections: Essentially, as long as the cited reasons for the recall are reasonably accurate, any reason will do. So what usually happens in Oregon — and what is happening in the Corvallis recall effort — is that these efforts center on unpopular actions officials have taken in the course of their duties, such as the board’s decision to close two schools to help the district with its financial woes. (Many other districts in Oregon are facing big financial shortfalls, and school closures are common.)

In my book, though, the place to challenge an incumbent over official decisions you might disagree with is not through a recall effort but rather through an election. Don’t like the way someone votes on the issues that matter to you? Run against that candidate — or find someone to run. In the last school board election, three of the four incumbent candidates were unopposed. If you’re really steamed about the school board, make sure that doesn’t happen again.

(As a side note, the G-T reports that the recall grounds against two of the board members cite the decision to close the Osborn Aquatic Center. But the city of Corvallis operates the center, not the school district. Imagine how much worse the district’s financial situation would be if it were holding the bag for Osborn repairs.)

What’s been the most controversial issue thus far at this year’s short legislative session? It’s this question: Will Oregon voters reject (as they almost assuredly will) proposed increases in transportation taxes and fees in May’s election or in November? Democrats say the earlier election date will provide clarity to efforts to line up funding for the state’s transportation infrastructure. But there’s a political side to this as well: Republicans hope having the matter on the November ballot will reflect poorly on Gov. Tina Kotek’s reelection bid. The Oregon Capital Chronicle explains the behind-the-scenes maneuvering in Salem.

Meanwhile, an under-the-radar proposal sponsored in part by Speaker of the House Julie Fahey that would limit the number of bills legislators could introduce in one of the longer sessions is beginning to generate some significant opposition. It is true that legislators can’t possibly keep track of the thousands of bills — 3,400 or so last session — filed during the long sessions. But Republicans worry, with some justification, that the proposal could entrench power with the Democratic majority.

A bill meant to clarify part of Oregon’s public meeting law may end up creating a loophole big enough to allow governmental bodies to do their business in secret. Betsy Hammond of The Oregonian/OregonLive explains that House Bill 4177 deals with so-called “serial communications” among officials — in other words, communications such as emails or telephone calls that allow officials to reach consensus on an issue in a series of one-on-one connections without convening as a quorum. Recent guidance on the matter (which, granted, is a tricky one) left some officials concerned that they couldn’t talk about issues with constituents or journalists. The bill is meant to offer clarity, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some public bodies find ways to abuse it; after all, it’s a lot easier to do the public’s business outside of the public spotlight.

Mark Graves at The Oregonian/OregonLive has been running infrared trail cameras around the Beaverton area, working on a story about the daily lives of beavers (which will be a fun story when finished, I suspect). Recently, one of his cameras captured a critter that Graves couldn’t identify — which prompted him to put together a quiz for readers. Can you successfully identify this mysterious creature? Here are two clues: It’s not Bigfoot. And it does have a connection to Oregon State University.

One of the interesting things about Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling rejecting President Donald Trump’s tariffs was the way it splintered the six conservatives on the high court. Here’s a news analysis from Ann E. Marimow at The New York Times exploring some of the implications. (The Times, by the way, says it’s expanding its coverage of the Supreme Court and now has four reporters on the beat. Seems like a wise ˚ investment.)

Maybe Stephen Colbert should figure out a way to take his show to YouTube after CBS pulls the plug later this year: His interview with U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico — which never aired on “The Late Show” — drew 85 million views on social media, far exceeding Colbert’s broadcast audience. And Talarico hauled in some cash for his campaign as well.

As the Winter Olympics winds down, the great sportswriter Sally Jenkins — who jumped from The Washington Post to The Atlantic at just about exactly the right time — has a story about how stress can trigger physical reactions even in the world’s top athletes. But the ways that those athletes can face down stress can help even those of us who can’t tell a quad Axel from a quad axle dump truck.

I can’t think of a recent big movie that has been as divisive as Emerald Ferrell’s adaptation of “Wuthering Heights.” I haven’t seen it yet — sad to say, I probably will wait to catch it on HBO Max — but Sophie Gilbert, writing in The Atlantic, has interesting things to say about the movie. Gilbert’s not a fan of the film (at least, I don’t think so), but she argues that the movie is a perfect fit for a culture in which everybody seems to be 12 years old.

Speaking of movies: Sometime next week, I’ll likely launch this year’s Oscar contest, in which I challenge readers to beat my record at predicting the Academy Awards. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the Oscar odds to date, as reported by the website Gold Derby. As it turns out, the front-runners for the big six awards — picture, director and the four acting awards — still appear to enjoy big leads: “One Battle After Another,” Paul Thomas Anderson, Jessie Buckley, Timothee Chalamet, Teyana Taylor and Stellan Skarsgard. So this looks like a year in which winning your Oscar pool will hinge on doing well in the other categories. So brush up on your documentaries and short subjects, and I’ll let you know when it’s time to enter the contest.

What I’m listening to: “The Overstory,” the Richard Powers novel about trees. I understand that many of you love this novel. Although I essentially agree with the book’s worldview, I have to say this: I am not loving it. I’ll leave it at that.

Something fun I noticed: A year or so ago, I linked to a New York Times story about a fellow in the Midwest who was making substantial cash printing bumper stickers for guilt-ridden Tesla owners that said, “I Bought This Before Elon Went Crazy.” Then, as now, I thought this was funny, but not sufficient remorse for Tesla owners. The other day in Eugene, I saw another Tesla with that bumper sticker and another one right next to it that said: “I Identify as a Suburu.” Again, not quite sufficient remorse, but getting closer.

That’s it for this weekend. I need to jump into my nearly 20-year-old Prius — which identifies as an old Prius — and buy some groceries. We’ll take another look at how Daffodil Corner is faring next weekend.