That settles it. I can't vote for either of these guys. I'm not usually a protest voter - more of a lesser-of-evils voter - but I won't cast a vote for either of these guys.

We Have a Atty. General ?????

What the Hellll as my asain pals would
call?

Hales just lost my lesser of two evils vote, like Snards said above. These are two of the worst candidates for major office I've ever seen. I cringe that one of them is going to mayor, although at least Smith's brand of insanity makes for good YouTube fodder.

I always prefer the bad driver over the lying tax cheat. It's a matter of principle.

O come on. People aren't really offended by this sort of typical political gamesmanship? Smith and Hales debate in front of a room full of people sponsored a non-profit (i.e., indirectly publicly subsidized organization) political group like OLCV, and it's not ok for someone to record what gets said? What's the big secret? OLCV puts out a press release acting all gosh-darn offended - who cares. Maybe it helps distract from whatever stupid thing Smith said.

I always prefer the bad driver over the lying tax cheat.

"Bad driver"? That's rich.

What were the circumstances of the recording? Where was the recorder? Where was the meeting held? Who was in the room? What was said about recording the event? Etc etc.

From the O article - "The Oregon League of Conservation Voters is calling foul on Portland mayoral candidate Charlie Hales' campaign for secretly taping what was supposed to be a confidential joint endorsement interview with rival Jefferson Smith. Oregon law prohibits secret taping of face-to-face meetings."

My take on this is it was a conference call with OLCV and the candidates. Probably staffers as well. Hales campaign is stating they didn't do anything illegal, and that is correct. But if the understanding was this was a OLCV/candidate/staff only call, it's still unethical. For a candidate who already has ethical red flags (tax/residency issues, public service until he can make more money during a term, puppet of the developers, etc.), this is not a good thing.

Hales should get some points for this - it's so lame, it makes him look harmless. And it sure beats a punch in the nuts.

Talk about stumbling across the finish line.

“The Charlie Hales campaign’s actions demonstrate a profound lack of integrity, judgment and respect for the process,” said Doug Moore, the OLCV's executive director, in a prepared statement. “We call for a public apology by the Hales campaign for this unethical and possibly illegal activity as well as the destruction of all secretly recorded conversations. Despite the legal implications, we are not filing a legal complaint against the Hales campaign. But Charlie Hales needs to take responsibility for the actions of his campaign and do the right thing.”

Why not file a legal complaint?

In my opinion we are in trouble in our area because too many in power, or public officials, etc. are getting by with this and that. They get arrogant and go further, still nothing happens and so on it goes.

Bill Schonely is being inducted into the Naismith hall of fame today a a broadcaster. If he got up and announced his write-in candidacy during his acceptance speech, he coul win this thing in a landslide. Desperate times...

The article very strongly implies that the meeting was in person as opposed to a conference call.

If it was a conference phone call Char-Lie taped, its not a criminal violation of Oregon or federal law.

If he taped such a call without telling the other parties, its rude and unethical, but not illegal.

If Char Lie was in a room in Oregon with Nutsy and the folks from the special interest lobbying group OLCV and surreptiously taped the conversation in person, without telling the other people in the room he was doing so, its clearly a criminal violation of Oregon law.

If Charlie was in a room in Oregon with Nutsy and the folks from the special interest lobbying group OLCV and set a tape recorder on the conference table in plain view and turned it on, without telling folks he was taping the conversation, its unclear if there is a criminal violation of Oregon law. There is no case law on that variation, and the statute can be read either way. My personal gut reaction is "no criminal violation, kind of rude, probably not unethical so long as all the other folks saw the tape recorder.

If Charlie was in a room in Oregon with Nutsy and the folks from the special interest lobbying group OLCV and set a tape recorder on the conference table in plain view, told folks he was going to record the session, and turned the tape recorder on, there is no criminal violation of Oregon law. Rude, not unethical and not illegal.

From the story in the Zero, it appears that they were all in a room together in Oregon, though that is not explicitly stated. It also appears from the story that the recording was made secretly, without displaying a recording device and without telling the other participants that a recording was being made. But again thats not explicitly stated in the story. If that si what jhappened, the Multnomah County DA ought to be all over Char Lie with an indictment.

Despite the joy many on here feel about tweaking the State AG, this is not an AG issue. AG has no criminal investigative / prosecutive power absent a request by a county DA or a directive from the Governor.

This makes my decision to write in LaVonne Griffin-Valade so much easier.

If a savant was listening in on the call and committed the meeting to memory, would reciting or transcribing the meeting be:
- unethical?
- illegal?

Regarding the election, I read somewhere that since this is a run-off, no write-ins would be valid. True?

ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. In Oregon, write-ins are allowed in any election, primary or runoff.

If the person recording was on the call or in the room, this is a "one-party consent" recording. One-party consent is perfectly legal in Oregon.

How magnanimous for them to not go to legal proceedings over something that is 100% legal.

The whole story is spin. One campaign is being smarmy by recording it, and the other is being smarmy by implying something completely false. Pretty much exactly what one would expect from these terrible candidates.

Under ORS 165.540(1)(c) ALL of the participants in a face to face "in person" conversation must be informed that it is being recorded. One party consent only applies to phone calls, etc. under 165.540(1)(a).

Machine shed -

Kevin is absolutely correct. "One party consent" applies only to phone conversations. In person requires notice to and consent from all participants. I'm willing to bet Char Lie didn't give notice and didn't get consent.

One of Many Mikes -

The savant scenario is cute and totally imaginary. But the answer isn't. The cited state statutes are quite clear. The savant wouldn't be criminally violating Oregon law. No electronic recording equipment used, no coverage under the statute.

Unethical? Probably not. In any group meeting one always has the option of telling others who did not attend what transpired. The imaginary savant in your example is more accurate in accuracy of reportage than the average run of the mill participant, but its the disclosure that is the ethical issue, not the accuracy of the report. I don't see an ethical issue with the savant. YMMV.

Nonny - I would agree with your analysis on the hypothetical savant thing, except for the fact that the participants were expressly told that the interview was confidential. Most consider a breach of confidentiality to be unethical. The League of Conservation Voters should have candidates sign a confidentiality agreement with a healthy liquidated damages clause prior to the group interview. No matter how you slice it, Char-Lie blew it big time on this one, and I think he's pushing more and more undecided voters over to Nutsy's camp. No matter who wins this one we are screwed, unless a miracle happens and La Vonn Griffin-Valade wins as a write-in.

God help us.