Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 20, 2008 9:45 PM. The previous post in this blog was The Clinton fix is in. The next post in this blog is It's worth it for the time that I had. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, April 20, 2008

City issues order -- Branam already violating it

We were planning to hold this one for the morning, but it's just too good to wait any longer.

On Friday at 5 in the afternoon -- just in time to be lost in weekend festivities -- the City of Portland issued its ruling on the investigation into whether City Council candidate John Branam had misspent publicly provided campaign funds by paying his campaign manager, Phil Busse, $20,000, and promising to pay him another $5,000 between now and the May 20 primary.

The ruling? That $25,000 was too much to pay Busse for the campaign -- it was beyond the $20,000 fair market value of his services. The city auditor ordered Branam not to pay Busse more than the $20,000 he had already received.

But get this: About an hour later, Branam reported to state elections officials that he had already paid Busse another $1,000, that very day!

We kid you not. At this writing, the breakdown of salary payments to Busse, gleaned from the ORESTAR system, is as follows:

Feb. 28$15,000
Mar. 6$ 1,000
Mar. 14$ 1,000
Mar. 28$ 1,000
Apr. 4$ 1,000
Apr. 7$ 1,000
Apr. 18$ 1,000

In his ruling Friday, the city elections officer, Andrew Carlstrom, wrote in part:

2. The Auditor has determined that payments totaling $20,000 to Mr. Busse fall within the range of fair market value for three months work and will comply with City Code Section 2.10.090.C.6.

3. However, any further expenditures from John4PDX for "wages, salary, and benefits" to Mr. Busse will trigger a violation of City Code Section 2.10.090 and will result in a civil penalty. If John4PDX chooses to pay Mr. Busse in excess of $20,000, the Auditor will determine the expenditures to Mr. Busse exceed "fair market value" and you will be assessed a penalty twice the amount of the infraction, or ten thousand dollars. In addition, should this occur, you will be required to return the excess amount to the Campaign Finance Fund. Please note that, per City Code Section 2.10.220.A.6, civil penalties may not be paid with Campaign Finance Fund revenues.

4. Payments to Mr. Busse for reimbursement of expenses during the Primary Election Period will still be allowed. However, given that the original planned expenditures to Mr. Busse were to total $25,000, any further expenditures made by John4PDX to Mr. Busse for wages, salary, or benefits during the Primary Election Period will result in a violation and penalty.

5. The March 27, 2008 Service Agreement between John4PDX and Phil Busse must be amended to reflect total payments to Mr. Busse of $20,000 instead of $25,000 to eliminate any commitment to any additional amount. Please submit a copy of the amended signed agreement to the Auditor not later than 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2008.

Given that the ruling was issued the same day as the last $1,000 check cut to Busse, one wonders at what times of day the two events transpired. The auditor's decision was announced to the public at 5 p.m. -- when was it delivered by e-mail to Branam? Did Branam and Busse know about the ruling before the check was delivered to Busse? Before Busse negotiated it, if indeed he already has?

In any event, according to the terms of the ruling, it would appear that the Branam campaign has two options at this point: have Busse pay back the $1,000 he picked up on Friday (don't bet on that, people), or suffer the consequences. The consequences appear to be forfeiture of $1,000 out of the "clean money" pot, plus a $2,000 penalty, which Branam would have to pay out of his own pocket.

Here's an interesting question: What if a generous donor wanted to give Branam the $2,000 to pay the penalty? Could Branam accept that gift? Would it matter if the donor was a close relative? By taking taxpayer funds under the "voter-owed elections" system, does a candidate lose the right to receive, say, a birthday present from one's parents?

We doubt that the city code or regulations address these questions, but hey -- like everything else with "clean money," we're sure that City Hall will just make up some new rules on the fly. It's a swell system, and it's working just great.

There are some other troublesome aspects of the auditor's ruling as well. But those really can wait until tomorrow. The fact that Branam's already in violation of the order is story enough for tonight.

UPDATE, 4/21, 7:20 p.m.: More on this here.

Comments (21)

My bet is that the auditor's office will say that Branam's payment on April 18 was made before the ruling and is therefore excusable in some way. Branam will say he has a contractual obligation to pay his campaign manager as agreed until the ruling is issued.

Blackmer will probably spend an untold amount conducting the "investigation".

It would be very exciting if it is proven that Branam knowingly violated the ruling. As it stands now, though, it only has the appearance of impropriety.

Even if the check was cashed first thing Friday morning, it still violates the order. The order clearly states, with no apparent wiggle room, that anything more than $20,000 for three months of Phil Busse is more than fair market value:

If John4PDX chooses to pay Mr. Busse in excess of $20,000, the Auditor will determine the expenditures to Mr. Busse exceed "fair market value" and you will be assessed a penalty twice the amount of the infraction, or ten thousand dollars.

I agree that the ruling speaks for itself, but never underestimate the auditor's ability to create wiggle room with the rules of VOE.

I guess what I am saying is that it would be very surprising to me if Branam knew what this ruling said and went ahead and paid another grand over $20,000 anyway.

Since the ruling said a fine would be assessed of double the violation, Branam will presumably have to pay back $2,000, not the $5,000 he would have been fined had he given Busse the initially planned $5,000 more.

My reading of it is that had he paid $5,000 more to Busse, he would have been fined $10,000 out of his own pocket, plus required to pay another $5,000 back out of his remaining VOE pile.

As it now stands, those numbers appear to be $2,000 and $1,000, respectively.

Notice how once you take out society's actual desire to donate to a campaign, everything after that becomes artificial? If the campaign had raised the money itself and paid Phil Busse over 20 grand we would know it was market value because it happened. Instead we have the government staring into a crystal ball and determining what would have happened in a fair market - a fair market that this system negates in the first place. It's a nice glimpse at how some systems reward failure with more failures and require more supervision as they generate more hassle. Once you start pretending society wanted this guy to have the money, the BS multiplies on cue, and the bureaucrats have more to do. What a surprise! Ultimately the system is a success for the bureaucrats because they grow. Meanwhile without the funny money, Phil and this guy could have settled the deal themselves, probably for much less. So the system has actually established a fake fair market value now that has no tight connection to reality. I'm fascinated by this kind of stuff.

I'm neither fascinated nor amused with this continued waste of MY MONEY! Why is Blackmer not demanding repayment of the taxpayer money that Opie spent running for an office he had no intention of fulfilling? The only good thing about VOE is that it has a sunset.

In the words of his own ad:

"Portland needs someone we can trust"

If Branam gets in, he'll make Adams look like a tyro when it comes to game-playing with tax money.

I think Branam is just trying to stimulate the economy, one staffer at a time.

Besides which, this is no less ballsy than suing the EPA for an exemption to clean surface water regulations at the same time you decide to "opt-out" of cooperation with the FBI anti-terrorism task force.

I think Branam is just the guy we need to Keep Porkland Weird!

It's actually pretty hilarious that instead of raising money, VOE candidates are going to spend all of their time trying to navigate the rules, both known and unknown. I mean, up until now it's not like the city provided guidance on how much was too much to pay a campaign manager. For that matter, how much is too little? The city has fair wage ordinances for construction projects. . . perhaps we need one for VOE! Better yet, why not just make it a city job classification? That way they can unionize and bargain for city benefits.

What I don't understand is why Branam didn't cancel Busse's payment that day. They could have amended the entry but since it was filed after the Auditor's announcment it looks like a big middle finger to the office that is supposed to be policing it.

The Auditor's ruling is a slap on the wrist, but I think it served its purpose.

First, it got the perpetual graft machine called the Branam faux-paign to slow down. The guy will no longer be able to hand out money to anyone claiming to know what they're doing.

Second, it provided the first shot across the bough for Branam's faux-paign. The $1,000 payment on 4/18 may or may not have been with ill intent. But the next ill-advised payment will surely be over-ruled. The instant that Branam realizes he will have to run a viable campaign (and not one imagine-ered by candy-coated rainbows and dreams), he'll make sound financial decisions - which is all you can really ask of a politician.

Third, I imagine the Auditor's close reveiw of the Branam faux-paign is just begining.

How much does it cost to put up and run a web site with a couple of youtube clips? Hasn't Branam paid his web designer somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000? The Auditor should be looking into that. Along that line of inquiry, ORESTAR does not include contact information for a good number of campaign workers. I recommend that the Auditor look into these people that are providing thousands of dollars worth of services to the faux-paign.

Who are these people?

Nothing positive for the City of Portland can come out of this faux-paign. It's an abuse of the system that has "desparate attempt for personal validation" written all over it.

Having said that, I appreciate the system's policing of faux-candidate Branam. Eventually the truth will be discovered.

If the truth is merely that Mr. Branam ran an ambitious yet monstrously wasteful campaign, then so be it. That will give him an honor not uncommon in politics.

If he has run a deceitful campaign that intentionally skirted the rules in an attempt to gain advantage, that will ultimately be borne out by the facts.

This blog tends to appeal to the conspiracy theorist that lurks within us all. However, I think the truth, as it relates to Mr. Branam, is simple: he doesn't have a clue what he's doing, and he's using The City's funds to try and figure it out.

When he's called out for not knowing what he's doing, he reacts by retro-fitting his actions to the rules he did not review in the first place.

Clearly, that's not the kind of person you want running a city. The man's integrity is lacking. That much is certain.

I'm not certain it's an integrity thing with Mr. Branam. I imagine that his seemingly endless string of gaffes has much more to do with inexperience and lack of adequate planning and preparation. He is quickly becoming the poster boy for everything that is wrong with VOE. At least we can thank him for that, right?

I still think that Mr. Sten overpaid Mr. I-Build-Everyone's-Web-Sites by at least 5 grand. See for yourself.

Maybe he was paying for something else? That would have been a perfect time and place for You-Know-Who to do a public service and form his own little PAC and post his own happy support/endorsement page all by himself, for free; to inform the public. What might his in-kind contribution be valued at if the Sten campaign were privately funded?

Can I obtain standing to object to each and every final decision to act or not to act on each and every expenditure that gets reviewed by the Auditor?

I demand that the Auditor post his review cycle (daily, weekly,monthly, irregular) for the expenditures and post a document noting his decision for each item, and the fair market value of each. Failure to note the fair market value determination should be actionable all by itself. (Then the Auditor could follow the land use planning self-funded scheme and bill the relevant campaign fund for the cost to review the expenditure plans.)

Bill does raise an interesting point: on what basis will the Auditor determine fair market value for a particular service once there is no more market?

Once you go into a VOE system, it seems to me that you have to let the candidates do whatever they want with the money, as long as it's related to the campaign.

If Branam overpays Busse, that's his decision to make. Perhaps Busse is a political genius, and this payment will help Branam get elected. Perhaps he's badly overpaying, and then Branam will lose.

But how can the Auditor possibly determine this?

Will there be a point where someone decides that their campaign is going to hire airplanes to sky write their campaign slogan across the city skies, and will the Auditor determine that this is not a good use of the money?

What about when new technologies emerge (e.g. not new at all--text messaging potential supporters). How can these possibly be "real market" tested if they are new and untested?

Who is the Auditor to make the decision about what constitutes reasonable allocation of resources?

Last question: how do Maine and Arizona do it?

I always thought our old friend Emilie did exactly what was reasonable if someone gave you over hundred grand to spend on a campaign - namely find a way to keep some of the bread in the family - and I loved the way the city wonks didn't want to admit it because they looked ridiculous.
Did the city auditor determine the fair market value of Emilie hiring her daughter? I know some other kid getting the money wouldn't have had the same value for Emilie.

The $1,000 payment on 4/18 may or may not have been with ill intent. But the next ill-advised payment will surely be over-ruled.

There's nothing in the order (or the rules) about intent. You're not allowed to pay people more than the fair market value of what they're providing, innocently or otherwise.

It's pretty clear how one assesses value: look at comparables. Luckily, salaries like these are all public information due to C&E reporting.

NOT everyone will be VOE races, there will still be many other political races that a reasonable person can look at, and one can look across VOE races to look for outliers.

Which is what the auditor did.

The question is not so much: what electoral services does someone choose, but did they pay reasonable rates for those services, instead of just giving their friends public money?

What about that other guy that used some of his money to fill potholes? Did he get that service for a fair market price?

"But the next ill-advised payment will surely be over-ruled."

BWAH-HA-HA!!!! How long have you been follwoing this horse opera?

I guess what I am saying is that it would be very surprising to me if Branam knew what this ruling said and went ahead and paid another grand over $20,000 anyway.

With all the crap that has been going on with this lovely VOE thing, it wouldnt surprise me at all.


Sorry, but I am a statistician at heart, and I have to ask: what comparables? Unless you are controlling for a whole bunch of things about the city (size, composition, media markets), the race (opposing candidates, their fundraising ability, their visibility, incumbency) and the service paid for (how good is that consultant?), there is no way to determine "comparables".

This is a very complex undertaking. It's not like we have something like zillow to evaluate dozens and dozens of similarly situated properties.

If you look at how VOE has taken hold in Maine and Arizona, fewer and fewer races will become non-publcly funded.

I agree with Kari's post in another thread--the citizen's committee and the Auditor should be erring on the side of disengagement.

If someone is stupid enough to overpay for a service or consultant, that's their loss. The only thing we need to watch out for is phony payments to relatives.

Other than that, it's best to keep it hands off.


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run in 2017: 113
In 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics