National Nurses United, the nation's largest registered nurses union and professional organization, declared on Tuesday that the Senate health care bill gives away too much to insurance companies and "fails to meet the test of true health care reform."
"It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the health care crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry," said co-president Karen Higgins in a statement.
"Sadly, we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true health care reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the chokehold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations," she added.
I hadn't heard of NNU, but the largest nursing union in the country? Here's their PR bio, for what it's worth. For some reason I immediately thought of Amanda Fritz, RN, the Portland Commissioner, and whether she was a member and took as strong a line against the Senate bill. I got a quick reply:
I am not a member of NNU. I don't support their position. Any of the versions of national health care reform currently under consideration is not all I hope for, however I believe any improvement is better than no improvement. Both ONA and the Portland City Council passed resolutions supporting single payer health care in 2009. I believe our nation must continue to work towards the goal of universal coverage with adequate controls on costs and profits.
I am still a member of the Oregon Nurses Association. ONA is not a member of National Nurses United - the latter is California, Massachusetts, and United American Nurses. ONA left UAN a year or so ago and with five other state organizations formed the National Federation of Nurses.
For the record I also believe that any improvement is better than no improvement--but the question is really whether the Senate bill represents net improvement. I gather we differ on that, fair enough. Fritz certainly has a reputation for a populist mindset and skepticism of plutocracy, so her support of the Senate bill as it stands, no matter how odious to me, is worth noting. (ONA, as far as I can tell, has offered no official statement on the Senate bill.)
Volm is well-known to City watchers and certainly understands how the wheels turn in Portland, but as far as I know reports no specific governing experience to substantiate her candidacy. (I'm happy to be corrected on that). She will be seeking public financing, which I fully support; if she can get the signatures and spend the money properly, we've found from past example that it's a pretty good indicator of one's seriousness, motivation and discipline (cf Amanda Fritz, for whom if hardest worker meant winner, she'd be governor by now).
When I say "well-known," it's for a couple of reasons that go beyond her longtime public visibility and communications role with the City. There was a rather odd incident involving Volm and a town-car driver in 2007, where Volm got the early media and police attention to her side of the road-rage tale, but which apparently saw all charges against her adversary dropped, and a fairly detailed (but unconfirmed) account at The Merc that placed Volm as the aggressor.
More recently, Volm drew attention as a "volunteer spokesperson" for the initial Recall Adams drive earlier this year, which failed by an unknown deficit to gain the ballot. She was a frequent critic of Adams, as she continues to be in more veiled form--"There is a leadership void at City Hall"--and certainly will be labeled at least in part as an anti-Adams candidate despite her challenge to Saltzman. Poor Dan, who I refer to that way not because he doesn't deserve a challenge, but because it's not very fair for him to be the proxy Adams, just because the Mayor isn't running for three more years.
Also on the Volm bandwagon is Adams Recall chief Jason Wurster, whose Facebook page in support of Volm was what tipped The Merc. That's why Matt Davis called Wurster, who was apparently abrupt and answered no questions about a Volm candidacy. OK, that's fine, perhaps he didn't want to steal her thunder.
But you gotta figure he was one of the first people to find out about her intentions, given Volm's individual Facebook page--which highlights not only the importance of prepping your online persona before announcing your candidacy, but also who you're feeling chummy with these days: in this case, Jason Wurster.
As an aside, it's a fair question whether a candidate's romantic interests are suitable fodder for reportage, and there will certainly be some who find it completely irrelevant. Ordinarily I might agree, although certainly it's par for the course for a politician to at least have your significant other be known and reported on.
Anybody but Wurster, in fact, probably would not be news. But because he represents the face of the recall supporters, and because Volm's own commentary on Adams has been frequent and similarly damning, it's worthwhile I think to posit questions about what it might imply for her candidacy.
For instance: does Wurster's co-initiation of a Facebook page, and his immediately previous management of a campaign, indicate that he is a likely candidate himself for her campaign manager? How much of his message and activism defines and motivates her nascent indulgence in actual politics? Or more baldly--is this a coordinated attempt to raise from the ashes of the RA campaign and try to get at Adams in a different way?
Running against Saltzman means that if she's succesful, she'll have immediately signed on to work with Sam Adams on a near-weekly basis at best, daily at worst (for her, anyway). How does she plan to handle that, given her desire to see leadership restored? Sure Portland has a weak mayor system, but does Volm intend to make up the "leadership gap" in the Mayor's Office from her seat at Position 3? That's a recipe for disaster...or at least more Merc stories.
Given that "jobs and economic development" are famously generic goals for Council tenure, we'll have to wait in order to learn more about what Volm offers and what distinguishes her from the already-declared challengers and Saltzman. Until then, we're left with questions about package deals and coordinated campaigns. I'll try to talk to Mary directly about her candidacy (we are Facebook friends after all, and isn't that meaningful?), but we'll also have to see if she'll talk to me. I'm totally open to hearing her plan for Portland, but yeah, sure--I'll cop to being skeptical at the moment.
Bojack has definitely returned to his scandal sheet since having the premise flatly debunked, yet the original and flatly inaccurate headline remains unchanged. His entire response has been to post two additional comments that essentially attempt to call Williams' story into question. He worries that other meetings were held that are not listed on the report. Uh, maybe he didn't attend those meetings? And as I indicate below, Williams' attempt at excess disclosure is turned by Bojack into something just as 'suspicious' as if he'd not disclosed at all...
-------------
Since last week, when a new and much more City-favorable agreement was reached with Merritt Paulson on the remodeling of PGE Park for an MLS Portland Timbers franchise, I've been figuring on professional Drudge-accurate curmudgeon Jack Bogdanski either shutting up for good on the subject, or going into hyperdrive to keep his festering opposition going.
Can you guess which he picked? Undaunted by news that the primary sticking point of "taxpayer funding" has been largely eliminated due to the tabling of urban renewal dollars, that Paulson is now agreeing to pay 2/3 of the estimated costs, and the City's administrative honcho says there's plenty of money in the Spectator Fund to cover the rest even if ticket sales don't pan out, Bojack continues to try and find angles for his opposition.
His complaints on the deal from the day the agreement was announced (I'm not going to link to any of it except the specific story I'll reference in a moment) were that it was foisted on Council with only 10 minutes of lead time (uh, plus the two weeks they're taking before voting on it), and the possibility that Paulson will ask for more money later (rather than celebrating the $6mil reduction in overall costs for the new plan).
Oh, but that was just for starters! Subsequently, Bojack fed the home-team trolls at his site with stories on:
"Uncomfortable" stands (despite apparently being an inch wider than standard)
Poor soccer attendance...for a Timbers AWAY game
Rain for the AAA All-Star activities at PGE, as a way of lamenting the jettisoning of the Beavers from current plans
The fact that Paulson doesn't routinely open the books of his private holding company to the City
and the City of Petaluma failing to reach a deal with Paulson in 2006 for a single-A franchise.
Today's hit piece, however, represents the apex of drive-by blogging--using his frequent source of "an alert reader" to attack his target. Maybe Jack would do well to vet some of those reader comments before he publishes under a blustery headline like OHSU is Involved in Paulson Stadiums Deal:
When Portlanders get a strong hit of that real estate development scam smell, a number of suspects immediately come to mind. But who would have thought that Oregon Health and Sciences University had an interest in the Paulson soccer-baseball empire?
An alert reader points us to this document-- a disclosure of lobbyist contacts with Portland city officials for the first three months of the year. And there we find that OHSU had someone named Mark Williams have no fewer than five personal meetings with Fireman Randy to discuss "soccer/baseball." In 31 years in Portland, we thought we'd seen everything, but the explanation for this one ought to be a doozy. Williams heads OHSU's planning, development and real estate unit. How is that connected with the Paulson deal?
A new deal focusing on just the acquistion and siting of the Portland MLS franchise has been hammered out between City Council and Merritt Paulson, the potential franchisee who was staring down a league-imposed deadline for a deal to keep his bid. The accelerated pace that only recently Mayor Adams had apparently admitted would not meet the league's timeline, combined with the simpler and leaner needs sans Beavers and a put-up-or-shut-up attitude from 3/5 of Council, may have driven Paulson to accept a much higher level of personal risk: roughly 2/3 of the total cost--with a stable funding stream to repay the City for the other third. More on my understanding of the details below the fold, but right now here's KATU's decent piece on passage:
I finally managed to catch up with Portland Commissioner Randy Leonard, the tip of the spear when it comes to the MLS deal that has apparently precipiated the awarding of an expansion franchise to Portland beginning in 2011. However, we pretended that the news of yesterday wasn't official, formal or obvious--and in any case, we talked mostly about other issues surrounding the process, including his ongoing debate with Ted Wheeler about City and County finance, why he thinks the Blazers did an about face, and what should go into the proposed entertainment district for the Rose Quarter.
The whole audio file of our 39-minute interview is available here, so that you can hear precisely the questions asked, and Leonard's full responses. Be warned that it's a 20MB .mp3 file, and as such may put a strain on your PC if you are using older equipment. But it's worth the full listen.
However, so that you don't HAVE to listen to it, I've transcribed readable versions of some of the questions and answers that yielded the most interesting parts of the conversation. I would call the transcript "close to verbatim;" while I've edited some things out for readability and length, the edits do not change the meaning of the responses, and once he gets into the meat of his answer his words are almost 100% as he said them. And of course if you're skeptical about that, listen to the audio for yourself.
So with that, let's hear what Randy had to say on the eve of what shapes up to be an historic announcement in Portland tomorrow!
-----
What do you think Chair Wheeler is expecting from the "new covenant" suggested to bring the County and Portland Public Schools more closely to the table in the Urban Renewal District (URD) discussions for the PGE Park area?
He was referencing a broader conversation he and I have had with reference to Measure A, a resolution adopted by the county in 1984, that was a document that reflected the division of responsibilities between the City of Portland and County of Multnomah. Basically what Resolution A said was the county will do jails, the county will do human services, and the city will do police, fire, parks, infrastructure services because up until 1984, there really was no core delineation who did what, who was responsible for what.
Since 1990 and the passage of Ballot Measure 5 the County has had diminishing resources, then they've had administrations in the White House who've cut various funding for human resource programs, aging programs--that money has diminished at the state, and the state has diminished it to the counties. The County has found itself in the position of having all these responsibilities stay and even increase as we've had a growing aging population and in some case a growing poverty population where the resources have diminished.
What Ted was talking about yes, I think let's talk about URAs and the impact on us, but also this broader discussion--should Multnomah County really be saddled with repairing all the bridges anymore? Shouldn't they be the City's responsibility? Should we be funding Hooper Detox anymore, when really primarily the people that are being served by that are Portland people? I know that's what he was saying, because he and I have had that discussion before.
I'm going to post the headline and then backfill...
Moments ago, Dan Saltzman cast an Aye vote for the proposed financing of an MLS and new baseball stadium concept, but with a major condition: the proposal was first amended to REMOVE the $15 million projected to come from the construction of a new Urban Renewal Area around PGE Park. Commissioners Fish and Fritz had just voted No, and with expected Yeas by Randy Leonard and Mayor Adams, it was clear that everything came down to Dan.
His vote means that the proposal as amended is approved--which means there is a $15 million hole for the full funding. Will Merritt Paulson reject the deal on that basis? Will Council get it figured out in time, either with the URA or some other source? We'll see...
-----
Well, that was interesting! The portion of the City Council meeting dedicated to the fate of the MLS proposal took roughly from 10AM to 330PM, requiring the cancellation of other agenda items until tomorrow. (They almost adjourned without a vote, wanting to put THAT off until tomorrow as well, but Saltzman cannot be there and so that wasn't going to happen). I was able to listen along while working on other stuff and eating lunch, and can give an extended summary of the proceedings and the feelings of the individual Commissioners and other involved players. (If you want a quicker, dirtier, but currently available rundown, try Ryan White's liveblog. Wish I had the time/salary to do that!)
But let me offer an Executive Overview first: having to rely on the prospect of Dan Saltzman as your third vote for anything is a harrowing trial. And having to remain on pins and needles while wondering if he'll still vote No--even after having his HUGE and potentially thorny amendment to remove the most controversial funding source from the proposal accepted--is like waiting to be waterboarded.
Yet and still, it would appear that Saltzman's amendment has saved the day, because otherwise the whole proposal was going to fail. Because of the testimony from a number of sources including this morning's front page Oregonian story, the issue over creating a new URA around PGE Park quickly became the hot topic and the biggest stumbling block in the way of approval. An agreement to discuss the URA process, while more fully including those who feel they have been shut out of the discussions (ie, Multnomah County and Portland Public Schools), became the only way to preserve the rest of the deal.
So what will now happen is that Randy and Sam will work overtime to explain how the URA won't represent an immediate and sharp cut in basic services. From testimony, it seems the job will be hardest with Multno Chair Ted Wheeler and Commissioner Fritz, who also seemed worried about the counsel offered by the Blazers rep at the hearing, who confused everyone by saying a new Beavers stadium in the Rose Quarter would threaten his team's livelihood.
There are, however, twin dangers as I see it: time, and Paulson. Is there a realistic opportunity to hack through all the weeds over urban renewal, and reach an agreement within a week if necessary? Unsure. And it could only take longer than a week if Paulson agrees to take his proposal to MLS as approved by Council, with a sudden $15mil hole in the package. Would he cover the funds to make it happen? My strong guess is no. But will he just throw up his hands now when he is THIS close to victory? That's a tough one...
{hearing details below, once I'm able to collect my thoughts and get some more free time to write them up}
Regular LO readers know I'm pretty disgusted with Sam Adams--but unless and until I see a) clear evidence of criminal activity or b) clear evidence of his inability to participate effectively on Portland's City Council, I see no reason for him to resign. And while I agree that a potential recall should be the mechanism by which Adams is removed before his term ends, I wouldn't support any such recall at this time.
Obviously a bombshell--such as a text message trail--would change things quickly on the legal front, but Willamette Week's Nigel Jaquiss, WW's Pulitzer-winning reporter and the official breaker of the Adams/Breedlove story is ready to go ahead and declare Sam's effectiveness compromised in a number of key areas. The only problem is, Nigel cites little if any evidence to back up his analysis, and ignores some key counterfactuals. I like Nigel; I think he's a very fine reporter and has every right to follow this story...but when I've found his conclusions suspect I've said so (and so did Carla when she was with us at LoadedO). And here we are.
Here's how Nigel ledes:
Three weeks after Mayor Sam Adams admitted lying about his sexual relationship in 2005 with then-teenage Beau Breedlove, Adams is gamely trying to return to city business as usual.
In a Jan. 25 video announcing his return to work, Adams asked to be judged on “my ability to deliver results.”
But it’s unclear exactly what “business as usual” means for the new mayor, and even less clear that he can deliver results.
Certainly a fair premise, as I've noted. But you've got to back it up. Below the fold I'll explore the rest of the article for such evidence...
Well, he's decided, over the weekend: Sam Adams will maintain his position as Mayor of Portland and show up tomorrow for work as "normal." The length of time it takes for the quotations to be removed from "normal" I predict will be inversely related to the strength of any recall effort beginning in July.
Sam produced a video (or commissioned it to be produced, I suppose--using City TV Services?, or a home job?), and I'd love to embed it--and in a just and sensible universe, I'd be able to do just that. That's not how PortlandOnline(TM) rolls, however. I'll fight the urge and the gag reflext to comment further. So you can download it this way, either low res or high res. They're Quicktime files, natch. It's Portland...
...edit--a helpful reader induced me to look again for the secret to unlocking the embed code, so here's the vid now with his written declaration, and my commentary, below the fold:
As Matt Davis points out at Mercury Blogtown, this isn't the final verdict by any stretch, but the first decision is in on Portland's "sit-lie" law, and a Multnomah County judge has upheld its constitutionality and reasonableness. If there were an Intrade market on the likelihood of appeal, I'd say 95 cents might win you a nickel. Marr's got the report:
Meyer called Monica Goracke, attorney for the Oregon Law Center, and co-chair of the mayor's Street Access For Everyone oversight committee, as a witness on Newman's behalf. Goracke reportedly described downtown and where the homeless tend to congregate, and said the law was focused on those areas. Meanwhile homeless activist and pastorKen Loyd testified about the homeless in Portland, too. Downtown cop Craig Dobson reportedly said he'd cited Newman even though he had a sign saying he was "protesting" the law.
It's understood that Hannon ruled that the ordinance is constitutional because it only leads to a violation, and not a criminal prosecution. But Meyer disagrees.
"We want to appeal it. I think the judge is wrong on the law. This law really falls on the homeless and basically I think it allows the state to herd the homeless," he says.[ital orig]
I understand the legal point being made, but on a common sense level it's ludicrous to have an exemption for "protesting" the ordinance. ANYONE being cited is essentially protesting it, unless we assume someone out there is thinking, "Yes, I deserve to be punished for sitting here quietly on this public sidewalk" while the cop writes the citation. Everyone potentially to be cited just needs to say "I'm protesting" and they're off the hook? Then there's the other odd part of the ruling, that simply citing (ie, fining) someone rather than convicting them of a criminal offense makes it OK.
I've been following this case avidly for a while, but this seems like an entirely unimportant way station along the path of final ajudication. The 9th District has already had to take up similar cases before, and I don't expect the broader legal concepts to get much play until the appeals reach at least Oregon's Supreme Court. And there are few states in the union with a court so predisposed towards free expression and movement. (Note the futility of blocking nude joints like Stars Cabaret in Tualatin). Based on case precedent, the venue and the body likely to hear it, I'm hopeful.
Look everyone, it's a picture of that totally talented, crazy-hot chanteuse Storm Large!
I'll have to get back to you on who those other people in the photo are; somebody had to point out to me that there actually WERE other people in the shot.
OK, just kidding--of course that's Portland Council candidate Amanda Fritz and Commissioner/Mayor-elect Sam Adams, along with the exec directior of the Portland Neighborhood Business Associations Alliance, Jon Turino. Obviously Amanda's smiling; she just got Mayor Sam's endorsement for her runoff against Charles Lewis. Sam has a politician's "OK, this is my 100th photo and my jaw is tired so I'll keep the teeth visibility to a minium" look. But Turino looks pretty thrilled to be on Ms. Large's arm--and why not? He's got the potential headstart on "entering the Storm Center" (Davey Nipples notwithstanding); neither of the others are attracted to women! Although I do see Kate Brown lurking at background left...
Silly sexual innuendos (and my Carteresque heart-lust for Storm) aside, this is a big boost for Fritz. Adams has a large coterie of supporters with no vote to cast for him this November, since they pushed him over the top without a runoff in May. The signal from the presumptive Mayor--this is the person he'd like to work with for the next four years--is a strong and compelling one. I like Charles Lewis, especially the things he's done with Ethos Music, but it's beginning to appear that Fritz is steamrolling her way to a Council seat on her 2nd try. (And might I add that if not for Portland's public financing process, she wouldn't have run either time.)
Go Storm! I mean, Amanda! Sheesh, I'm going to go take a shower.
(photo credit: Amanda Fritz for Portland City Council)
I suspect some may not laugh at the morbid connotations of 'stumping' for a man with a hook for an arm, but I bet Steve would, and 'canvassing' always makes me think of wrapping people in tent material, like at Boy Scouts summer camp, when you spent the week inside those heavy canvas platform tents.
The term stumping is technically not even accurate here; it more typically refers to the candidate himself delivering speeches and meeting the public (as one might standing on a stump to be seen, although Steve might need more of the actual tree), but I spent my Saturday morning out speaking and testifying on Steve's behalf in Northeast Portland. I developed something akin to stump speech points, things I said that seemed to work well and that got my message across quickly and directly...so dammit, I was stumping for Steve and I'm sticking to it. It could have been worse; I could have said I was hooking for Steve.
Meta having been addressed and dispatched, I did indeed compel myself and two children out of bed at 8AM Saturday in order to go walk the streets edumacating Portlanders on Steve Novick, candidate for Senate.
Now that the deadline for candidate filings has passed, voters have the opportunity to size up the field and see what their options are, both in specific races and in terms of how the larger pictures shape up, policy-wise.
Most legislative primary races are uncontested.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. “ (“Won’t Get Fooled Again,” the Who)
Yet the voters want change, fresh voices, new perspectives, access to power for real citizens, not just the same career politicians again and again.
The voters also want legislators that reflect the changing demographics of our state, so that no citizen is left behind.
That may have to wait until the next go-round.
There is only one House and one Senate race in the May 20 election that would bring the legislature a step closer in reaching these strategic goals.
The marvelously-gifted Cyreena Boston will likely be successful in her bid to re-integrate the House. May other community members have the courage in the future to step up and serve beside her there.
That level of courage among Portland’s racial and ethnic minority communities is hard to find. Lots of talkers, few takers (of the opportunity).
My race in the Oregon Senate is far more difficult, and I am going to take some time to write about how this effort has unfolded, and the barriers to democracy and authentic citizen participation that I’ve encountered along the way.
In Part I (Portland-Style), I want to offer a different perspective on Portland’s Voter Owned Elections (VOE) in a larger sense of access to democracy, and the contrast between the City Council’s commitment to democracy in city races and the overt cronyism that has appeared in the race for Senate District 23.
When Senator Gordly announced her intention to retire last summer, her Senate seat became open in the election cycle, and any citizen could step into the ring and compete.
In the last election cycle, there were five candidates for retiring Representative Steve March’s seat, and I had assumed that there would be several competitors for Senator Gordly’s position. I looked forward to the opportunity to discuss competing views and perspectives.
This is perhaps the most important contested seat in the Senate in this election cycle, as with Senator Gordly’s retirement the legislature loses its most unique voice, its most independent spirit, its most tireless champion for the underserved in every respect. Seniors and people living with disabilities, people living with mental illness, and racial and ethnic minorities would be first to feel the pain, the least likely to gain another champion.
The Senate also stands to lose ground as a mirror of its Oregon citizenry.
As Oregon experiences the pressures of its growing diversity, the Senate stands on the brink of moving in the opposite direction.
I waited for some months after Senator Gordly’s announcement, to see if any regular citizens would step up and enter the race. I focused instead on doing my job as Senator Gordly’s Chief of Staff. In any case, I had decided, out of respect for Senator Gordly, that I would not be the first to file for her seat.
I had no idea that the Portland City Council members had already made their commitments in the race.
State Representative Jackie Dingfelder began her campaign to replace Senator Gordly in late summer of 2007, opening with the endorsements of four Portland City Council members in her pocket.
While these endorsements were not a discouragement to me, as residents of East Portland rarely see them out here anyway, I felt that they would dampen the enthusiasm of other potential candidates and act as a deterrent to real citizen access to this process.
Endorsements like these also deter contributions and other support for grass-roots campaigns.
These City Council endorsements were announced some seven months before the deadline for candidate filings arrived, which brings us to the point of Voter Owned Elections, currently a death-rattle away from an ugly demise.
The race for Senate District 23 is, to the best of my knowledge, the only race that has drawn the Council members early interest.
There was no discussion, no opportunity to debate, no nothing prior to the endorsements, not even a competing candidate, just POW! Massive full-scale endorsements, many months prior to the filing deadline.
So much for democracy and inclusion, and that commitment to diversity that one often hears from City Hall and the County Commission.
One side of the mouth bespeaks grass roots, the other bald cronyism.
Later, in early fall, when the Carpenters Union and the American Federation of Teachers invited me in for candidate interviews even though I wasn’t in the race yet, I asked them why they were conducting these interviews so far in advance of the filing deadline. There is only one candidate in the race, I noted.
Neither group had an answer to the question.
How can you decide on a candidate now, when you don’t know who will be in the race?
Shrugs in response. The point, obviously, is that they don’t need to know who else might be in the race.
How does this process, and these early endorsements, benefit the constituents of Senate District 23?
I mulled this question over as the months passed by, but can think of no way in which this is a benefit to the senate district, to the community or to the state.
The special interest groups embody self-interest. No surprise there. It’s not about you, it’s about them, pure and simple. It says so right on the door.
Voter Owned Elections, however, speaks of a level of commitment to keep the doors to elected office open wide enough for more citizens to enter.
The people of the City of Portland are spending a lot of money on encouraging regular citizens to step up, a ton of enabling money flowing out of the Council.
But all of that VOE money pouring into local races swamps the limited funds available to citizen candidates in other races.
Never level in the first place, the spillover into other races tilts the playing field further, inhibiting new voices.
The Council members early endorsements hinder fund raising for grass roots candidates and then the spending begins, and the grass roots campaigns cannot compete with the avalanche of media that the VOE money buys. You are screwed both ways.
The Council is a major factor promoting diversity and broadening citizen civic participation in Portland, but the old boy/girl factor is hard to beat, and the essential clubbiness of insiders a reminder that once a candidate crosses to the other side, they are different from you and me.
Now the field is closed. We have what we have. The early endorsements did their work, competition is stifled, the candidates are few.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Coming soon:
Part 2: The inside story on special-interest group interviews and endorsements, and what this means for voters in Senate District 23 and beyond.
Part 3: Race and culture in Portland politics
Part 4. The impact of presidential campaigns on local democracy
I haven't ended up with all that favorable an impression of Tom Potter's time as Portland Mayor, but on the other hand he hasn't upset me very often and certainly seems to have been the better choice over Francesconi. I like his appreciation of the big picture, although I don't like the process that tends to evolve around corporate or governmental "visioning" projects. Usually it's a Buzzword Convention, with a lot of paradigm shifting and out of the box thinking that comes with team building. He seemed to hate governing, but he really liked thinking about governance--like the character in Clerks who hated people but loved gatherings. That conundrum was Potter's career as Mayor, seems to me.
That said, this is a pretty cool outgrowth of his philosophy:
Mayor Tom Potter is moving City Hall to Jefferson High School for a week to give students, parents and educators a first hand lesson in how government really works - and to showcase the opportunities, successes and challenges facing every school in Portland's six public school districts.
The visit begins at first bell at 7:45 a.m. on Monday, January 14th, and concludes with the annual State of the City address on January 18th in the school auditorium. The regular Wednesday City Council meeting will also be held at Jefferson that week in the auditorium.
Mayor Potter accepted the invitation last fall when students from Jefferson visited the City Council. The Mayor said he would not only visit the school, but bring along his entire staff and invite area political and civic leaders, as well as parents and local business owners to join him.
As the blogosphere--certainly in the Portland area--is by now aware, City Commissioner Erik Sten has announced his resignation effective in April. Willamette Week got the early-year scoop on everybody with an announcement that isn't surprising in its effect but rather the timing, and the fact (at least to me) that it didn't leak out before the issue ran. Or am I wrong and someone had it Tuesday night?
The story, and 3+ hour interview with Nigel Jaquiss that fills around it, are well worth the read if only for the vivid example of Sten as Sten in his comments. Even after you see it a number of times, it's still a bit of an eye-opener when he is so direct, particularly about professional relationships and evaluations of other people. He dishes on everyone, freely admitting tensions and difficulties. But it's part of both his charm and what makes him effective as a politician and policymaker.
I've had the pleasure of sitting down or talking to Sten at length on a couple of occasions; his was the first big interview of a sitting officeholder that I'd done for the blog, in spring of 2006. It was a long interview that I mostly reprinted verbatim, because the way Sten talks he fills in his own details and backstory, which is both entertaining to read and makes narrative mostly unnecessary. You can read Part One, then Part Two and finally Part Three.
I had another chance to talk with Erik when he called ME up, to talk about the sit/lie ordinance and his worries that it was going to take effect before the homeless-aid parts of the deal had been made good on. That one's shorter, but no less Erik.
It's a real balancing act to be both savvy and starry-eyed. Sten made high hopes and aspirations for Portland a signature approach during his Council career. Yet even at the start he had been inside City politics too long to ever be naive about how things worked, who had to be stroked and who could be bullied, and how much money played a part in things. Still, he maintains an infectiously deep passion for certain things that no self-respecting cynic would ever allow himself to express, and gets people to accomplish things most cities wouldn't even try.
Best of luck to you Erik; keep in touch with us as a civilian, will you?
The council voted Monday night to support a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. The vote was four to two.
Many of the residents in attendence spoke in favor of the resolution, while others questioned if it's the council's job to vote on a national issue.
In the end, the council voted in favor of impeachment proceedings. But since five votes are needed for a majority the issue will be taken up again at the next council meeting.
Sorry to play with your emotions on the headline, but does anyone else find it galling that our namesake city is the one out in front on impeachment instead of Little Beruit? When someone asks what the great liberal cities are in America, does anyone ever say "Portland, Maine?"
Sorry, Maineiacs--what you really deserve is kudos for recognizing the threat we're under, Constitutionally speaking. I'm just jealous. Yes, in all cases the votes are entirely symbolic, but it's a matter of pride and understanding just how dangerous is the ground we're treading. The Democrats' capitulation on FISA is just the latest example of how flimsy the protective seawall is at keeping tyranny at bay. I am sick to DEATH of fear-driven votes by Democrats, goddammit. Stand UP, for heaven's sake!
Despite multiple appeals from residents to consider resolutions of impeachment, to my knowledge and understanding the Portland (OR) City Council has not addressed the issue. How about it, Tom? Randy? Erik? Anybody?
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
I suspect some may not laugh at the morbid connotations of 'stumping' for a man with a hook for an arm, but I bet Steve would, and 'canvassing' always makes me think of wrapping people in tent material, like at Boy Scouts summer camp, when you spent the week inside those heavy canvas platform tents. 