Weekly rags don't get it
Sometimes Portland's "alternative" weekly newspapers are like the "alternative" to the truth. They send out youngsters with no background to cover things like government finance. And when the kids come back to the office, they've pretty much bought what the politicians and bureaucrats have told them, because they don't know any better.
One of these moments occurred yesterday. A member of the tattooed and pierced scribe corps at the Merc summed up the City of Portland's finances this way:
While the city is handling its debt well—we’re not putting our grocery bills on our credit card, if you will, and we've stayed in the good graces of the bond market—things like debt from urban renewal projects are still pulling the city’s numbers to the red....But hey, in the short term at least—current budget woes aside—the city's finances are looking solid enough.
No mention of the 2011 city auditor's report expressing alarm at the city's bleak long-term debt picture, which amounts to more than $11,000 of long-term debt per city resident. We're buying flat screen TVs when we can't afford our rent. "Solid enough"? Hardly.
Meanwhile, over at Willy Weed, Pulitzer Nigel, who ought to know better, passed off as nothing much a city ombudsman's report that recounted several significant incidents of malfeasance in the city's bureaus:
The absence of serious waste, fraud and abuse from the 2012 report released today (PDF) should make citizens glad but will likely not convince close observers of the City That Works.
Really? We printed some of the findings verbatim yesterday, but for those too lazy to read the actual report, here's a summary of some of the "not serious" items included therein:
1. Someone complained that the city's contracting bureau's "sheltered market program... paid a former city contractor thousands of dollars for consulting services it never rendered." The ombudsman found that the allegations were correct and "referred the matter to law enforcement for possible prosecution."
2. A water bureau employee ratted out a colleague on the water payroll for "outside business subcontracting" with the city on a water bureau project. When the ombudsman started asking questions, the employee resigned.
3. A vendor reported that he or she had been cheated out of a city transportation bureau contract because of questionable "scoring" of bid proposals. The ombudsman "found the PBOT employee's scoring of the proposals to be unsupportable" and forced the city to re-do the evaluation of the proposals with a different committee.
4. Residents complained that fire bureau personnel were illegally conducting political activity during an election, and the ombudsman concluded that the city's rules on the subject "lack... clarity and consistency."
Of course, there was also the federal bribery indictment of the city's parking meter manager. But hey -- nothing serious is wrong at Portland City Hall. Everything's fine. And now, here are the 10 best places to go when you're stoned.
UPDATE, 10:37 a.m.: This morning the O provides further details on incident no. 3 just listed, here. The hanky-panky happened in the awarding of a contract relating to -- surprise! -- the city's parking meters. Apparently it had to do with the stupid little slips of paper you have to deal with to park a car in Portlandia.
| Posted at 9:35 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (14)
I'd bet that the youngsters with no journalistic experience and the people they interview have an political agenda in common.
Posted by David E Gilmore | March 13, 2013 10:03 AM
Wait...you're calling out the last two paragraphs of a Merc post that was all about how the city is failing to maintain its property? Haven't seen anyone else touch that uncomfortable little report. The guy who wrote that piece by the way is doing the only disaster preparedness coverage in this city that's worth a damn.
Posted by Blecch | March 13, 2013 10:06 AM
To be absolutely fair, it's the same deal with far too many daily papers, too. With most weeklies, the ongoing rotation of staffers and reporters prevents any serious retention of past knowledge. Work there for a couple of years, realize that you can make a hell of a lot more money, say, sweeping up after horses in parades, and get the hell out. As a rule, the only people who last more than three years at a weekly are either incompetents who can't write about anything other than "Star Trek" or comic books, or entitlement brats who can't move on to a line of work that includes drug testing prior to hiring. Or both. (Nope, I'm not bitter about some of my colleagues during my weekly newspaper days, even the ones repeatedly protected from sexual harassment charges by having the interns in question fired. Not at all.)
Posted by Texas Triffid Ranch | March 13, 2013 10:09 AM
Looking into what the report included would be the least required of the newbie. Real journalism would have picked up where the auditor's report left off. The City Auditor has to play by rules not necessarily applied to an inquisitive seasoned reporter. I am not necesarily asserting more would be found, but rather the obligation of a reporter to look.
Posted by gibby | March 13, 2013 10:13 AM
you're calling out the last two paragraphs of a Merc post that was all about how the city is failing to maintain its property?
Yes. Because they are dead wrong.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 13, 2013 10:14 AM
BTW, "Blecch" is posting from a City of Portland computer. Interesting.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 13, 2013 10:15 AM
The Mercury is habitually supportive of City Hall and city efforts. They buy in to the same sustainability, biking, "planning-without-thinking" agenda and therefore serve as boosters rather than skeptics. They are completely defanged on most stories regarding Portland government, and the furthest thing from a watchdog.
Posted by Snards | March 13, 2013 10:21 AM
That can-kicking involves most services paid for with taxes and provided to the public nearly for free
Gotta love it:)
Posted by gibby | March 13, 2013 10:55 AM
Jack, "Blecch" is a former Mercury writer turned Sam Adams tweeter, perhaps?
Posted by Texas Triffid Ranch | March 13, 2013 11:20 AM
Maybe Blecch is Susan Anderson of BPS, who seems to have a lot of time on her hands for
social media and propaganda. Her latest posting on the BPS site is so warm and fuzzy it borders on untruthful.
Posted by Oregon Mamcita | March 13, 2013 11:34 AM
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?print=1&c=34747&a=130469
resolution numbers:
36248 approved on 9-1-04
and revised 9-6-06 with number 36435
Capital assets 6.11
The city must maintain capital assets, but ignores their own rules once again.
Posted by mark | March 13, 2013 12:45 PM
A close friend worked at the Portland Mercury for just over 2 years, and in that time- he has enough material/stories that have never been published that he could write a book that would be a bestseller. He said it's a boys club like everything in Portland. Everything is so rigged it's impossible to have a fair shake at anything. Nepotism infinite.
I worked with several people that are in the public eye that live in Portland and Portland likes to claim as "from Portland" but in reality and fact, not 1 of these people are from Oregon. They are also monsters of the sociopathic kind. I've learned one thing here, they absolutely detest the truth. I'm not talking about just the local government, I'm talking about the type of person that lives in Portland and treats it like one big utopic "Portlandia". Hands down the nastiest, passive-aggressive, narcissistic & crooked city I've ever been to- I've been to a handful of countries and been to all 50 states as well. The dreamers refuse to be disturbed. Let the sleeping dogs lie.
Posted by Sheila Turcotte | March 13, 2013 4:21 PM
I don't know the demographic. Does the average Mercury reader pay taxes (especially property taxes) themselves? Or do they live in the proverbial parental basement?
Posted by Downtown Denizen | March 13, 2013 8:34 PM
Weekly rags don't get it
In my opinion, most rags don't want to to ruffle too many feathers.
Posted by clinamen | March 14, 2013 11:38 AM