Jack at 02:25 AM | This is what happens when Erik Sten sets out to clean up municipal politics. It looks more dishonest than ever. That fellow could bungle a nocturnal emission.
JK: And it guarantee that a challenger cannot outspend the incumbent, which is usually required in order to defeat the guy who gives out the favors.

It is another in a long line of incumbent protection measures sold as campaign finance reform. It is amazing how many Portlanders fall for this crap.

On the other hand, Potter showed that it is possible to win in certain times, like when the current people are completely screwing up. So maybe there is hope this election cycle.

Thanks
JK

Let's stop the fraud. Despite Sten & Cos. spin these are not Voter Owned Elections. They are Taxpayer Financed Elections. Despite the ins and outs of who's scamming what the bottom line is that the entire concept is corrupt.

- Many owner-contributors ($5 contributors) can't vote (Ex. 1: Boyles; Ex. 2: Tate);
. non-citizen residents
. underage residents

- Many owner-taxpayers can't vote
. Business license fee payers who live outside of Portland;
. Non-citizen property tax payers

As I've noted elsewhere, TFE is typical of Sten. An overly complicated solution to no apparent problem that has the effect of concentrating taxpayer money into the hands a few.

So, no more VOE. It's TFE. Even the Trib now calls the [rimshot] the OHSU Aerial Tram.

Adding to the insanity are the comments of the city's elections officer, who says it's too late to do anything about the $140,000-plus that's been paid to Boyles, even if her reports were false.

Actually, that's not what it says. It says: "Susan Francois, the city's chief elections regulator, said there's little she can do about possible violations on Boyles' campaign report, because Boyles has been certified as a publicly financed candidate."

Emphasis added because the point is Francois can't do anything. There are regulations and administrative rules in place under which the Auditor can determine money given out through the system needs to be repaid to the City.

4) Revocation of Certification. If the Auditor revokes the certification of a candidate, the candidate shall deliver to the Auditor an amount of money equal to all monies distributed to the candidate from the Fund after the date the candidate was certified, plus 12% interest per annum on the total amount of monies received, in addition to any penalty and interest on the penalty. (City Code Section 2.10.220 and Administrative Rule ADM-ARB-2.14)

- ADM-2.16 - Repayment of Fund Disbursements

I know this is going to sound like I want Mr. Rogers neighborhood, but as another political hack once said the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.

The movement we need has been called many things over the years from the Renaissance to New Deal and the cycle just seems to repeat itself. When people don't take an active role in thier government and serve as the watchdogs and demand accounablity and common sense, then others take over looking out for thier own vested self interest.

It was interesting reading Jewel Lansing's book,Portland People Politics and Power and on Page 322 about how the Mayor, two commissioners, and the City Engineer were being investigated for "the planned public market on the waterfront that was to replace the popular, but congested farmers market at Fith and Yamhill. Indictments against the tree elected officials alledged that they had taken bribes and had paid two hundred thousand too much for the waterfront site." This was April 1932.

Good goverment is going to mean folks have to get off their duffs and personally participate in the system. Get to know the candidates. Don't elect boy wonders, but people like Amanda Fritz who have given the time and proven that they are honest and care about making Portland a good place to live and can work the system to get Parks and other amenities for the common folks. Then maybe we would end up with fewer TRAMS and more Parks with public money, and we would't TIF fund projects that drain the operating budget so basic services suffer so.

The Oregon Live news flashes over the weekend were darn depressing. They had four shootings or murders in a row.

If people would reconnect in funky old organizations that centered around public service, like the League of Women Voters, or a revitilized neighbohood association system. Maybe we could nip these booddogles in the bud before they were "too big to fail" and we get sucked into sacrificing schools and other public services to support their ongoing operating expenses, and watch these "signature" projects prematurely age and fail from lack of maintenance.

Did anyone else see this from the beginning as just a way for candidates who really didnt have a decent chance of getting outside financing a way to run?
Or did they just want to fleece the taxpayers?

Yes, a majority of us saw it coming on VOE.

That is why the City Council (all of them) voted not to have the electorate vote on it.

Now, electorate, vote this primary and fall elections with that in mind for the two positions now up for grabs and remember this when the other three positions are available. Enough!

Let's see...

We can have a system where lobbyists and big money peeps give to campaigns...and have politicos beholden to them.

Or we can have a system of public financing where politicos are beholden to the taxpayers who funded them.

This is the first run for VOE and there's bound to be things that need tweaking. But this "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mentality is silly.

I see nothing here but ax grinding, not real discourse on how to make things better.

Does anybody else wonder why those who most fervently support the so-called Voter-Owned Elections seem to be the most fearful of letting the voters decide if they want them?

I have a question for opponents: When's the last time a regularly-funded candidate returned his or her contribution to you in a refund when it turned out they had violated the law?

I'll wager never.

But if there was a violation here, there's a mechanism in place for refunding the money to the City.

You tell me which one is a better system.

Does anybody else wonder why those who most fervently support the so-called Voter-Owned Elections seem to be the most fearful of letting the voters decide if they want them?

Except for me, who was the lone supporter who also supported an immediate referral.

But when that didn't happen, and it turned out that those most fearful of taking the money out of elections were the ones most fervently backing an attempted ballot measure, that changed my mind.

"That is why the City Council (all of them) voted not to have the electorate vote on it."

Wrong. The vote was 4-1.

Please tell me at least some people on the center/left see the damage Eric Sten has done to the credibility of city government, and Ginny Burdick is the cat's paw of OHSU, PGE, and asorted special interests.

Portland can't afford the waste; we need scrutiny and public transparency. Have we had that recently? This VOE debacle is another example where the council and particular Erik Sten failed the old adage "Look before you leap."
I'm surprised Sten doesn't play in traffic because he is starting to look like political road kill. How many stupid things can he do.

Dave Lister has the common sense we need on council, which has been sorely lacking to the point where its an embarassment.

carla,

I would not blame a big money peep for anyone's individual failure to reason for themselves. They aren't a god that is somehow supposed to convince those without some special connection to god that they must listen to, and believe, those with the claimed special connections.

If anyone has after-tax cash that they lawfully obtained consensually from the public then they can talk all day long.

The only thing to which a recipient of city of Portland compulsory tax dollars is beholden to is a desire to lock-in the results of a fleeting opportunistic grab. It is symptomatic, symbolic, of the entire Portland scene.

b!x,

When was the last time someone refused to claim a tax deduction, or public gift, that was offered to them? Non-profits, if they are formed to avail themselves of a tax break, are just as bad in my opinion; particularly if their primary goal is to just speak and evangelize. I would wave an even bigger flag of "fraud." Shall I list the recipients?

jfe,

Let little dave speak. It makes feel sick when I hear blind praise . . . devoid of reason . . . it is just a belief that you offer.

Dave Lister has the common sense we need on council, which has been sorely lacking to the point where its an embarassment.

I don't think it's common sense to write a screed in which he complains that the city's business owners won't be able to participate in politics under VOE without associating with the "poor by choice".

Rather, that's derogatory and in fact false, since it's not like business owners can't still pile all the cash they want on non-participants in VOE.

If that's common sense, find me some of the uncommon, please.

This is the first run for VOE and there's bound to be things that need tweaking. But this "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mentality is silly.

What needs tweaking is the current lineup on the City Council. Baby Erik needs to be thrown out with his "clean money" blige water.

the Auditor can determine money given out through the system needs to be repaid to the City.

Well, he'd better get to work.

Jack, I understand you want Sten out and Lister in. But you're blaming Sten for the alleged fraud OF ONE OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

Emelie Boyles is running to defeat Sten -- so writing, "typical Portland. Typical Sten" is a little disengenuous.

Would any VOE detractor please explain to me why candidates violating the VOE rules -- if proven -- is any different from Bill Sizemore breaking the state rules for our initiative system? I may have been disgusted when I read about his forgeries, but that doesn't mean I wanted to end Oregon's system direct democracy.

Right, but Sten dreamed up the system to "save us from ourselves." Us little people get so confused when the big bad political advertisements (cough freedom of speech) come on the air - we need a system to protect us from people spending money to try and influence us! Because politics is DIRTY. DIIIIIIIIRTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. [/sarcasm]

Give me a break. I don't care who wins Sten's seat, but Sten is a joke. I'm unconvinced on Lister - he'd probably be OK, but I question his ability to win a majority in Portland. But I don't think Burdick could get away with anything (not with this crowd watching her every step).

Charlie Burr,

Can you promise that the men in blue would show up to arrest me if I were to go try to collect 5 dollar donations from 1000 people, right outside the City Hall? If so, then I could at least get standing to object to the supposed criminality of such conduct.

I wasn't sufficiently certain of arrest to assert that risk in a claimed need for judicial resolution to challenge the criminality on free speech grounds. Oh well.

I'm still not certain enough of arrest to even go downtown today and prance around in an open invitation for arrest.

The point here is, overbreadth.

The DA won't touch me. They'll just laugh instead.

I think my favorite part of the Clean Money argument was that it would make it easier for incumbents to be replaced. I’m sure that’s what you do at your jobs: Try and find ways for others to replace you. But these noble commissioners care so much about Portland and the people who live here, that they are willing to make it easier to lose their jobs to help us. So selfless. So brave. But I couldn’t help wondering: If the council members who voted for Clean Money were this noble already, why would they have to worry about the corrupting effects of dirty money? Maybe they just like the Clean Money because it makes their lives so much easier. Who wants to attend a fundraiser breakfast at 7 a.m. with scrambled eggs that are running harder than you are? Why not just get the taxpayers to fork over the cash?

"When's the last time a regularly-funded candidate returned his or her contribution to you in a refund when it turned out they had violated the law?"

In response, when is the last time taxpayer money was given to candidates? If someone raises money from private sources fraudulently that is not as bad as fraudulently taking public money.

Jack, I understand you want Sten out and Lister in. But you're blaming Sten for the alleged fraud OF ONE OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

Personally, I think Sten had fraud in mind from the beginning. He knew he may be on the way out, and thought support for his campaign may be a bit low...this way, he can get free money, and doesnt have to worry about it.
And frankly, if these were GOP candidates, everyone would be calling for their heads. Its about time people see that politics is ugly on both sides.

Speaking of fraud, has anyone checked out this page:

http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/index.cfm?c=39149

Jack, care to speculate how much taxpayer money has been spent on this visioning project? I'd say it's got to be in the seven digits already...are you SURE the "Scone" wouldn't have been better? At least he wouldn't have embarked on such a hare-brained project...

Oh, and I like this: "Grants—We received 143 grant applications!" I'll bet they did! Who wouldn't pass up a chance to get some city gravy money to toss in their 2 cents on "vision."

And this "Committee member shares logo ideas" - wowee....productive.

Hee hee.

This is my favortite part of the O article:

Between late October and mid-March, when she handed off most of her fundraising to Golovan, Tate collected about 550 donations. Between March 17 and March 23, Golovan collected 424 on her behalf.

She can only get 550 donations in about 4 1/2 months...then he gets her 424 in 7 days.

Umm, wow.

And frankly, if these were GOP candidates, everyone would be calling for their heads.

Um.. we haven't called for Boyles and Tate to be decapitated, but WE HAVE CALLED FOR A FULL REVIEW OF THEIR SIGNATURES RAISED BY THESE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS.

If there's fraud, they shouldn't get VOE funds. No argument on that from me.

If the Direction at Portland City Hall is wrong, and most people think it is. What would make anybody think Ginny Burdick would change the direction? After all, she works at Garn&Gerber who is the mouthpiece for the tram, OHSU, and PGE. Burdick has little experience with small business, or demonstrated support for small business. Her record in the legislature has been to vote for every tax and fee increase. Burdick has no record to suggest she will apply scrutiny to City Hall spending practices, or would stop the "sucking sound" of tax money going to OHSU.

The point is: Ginny Burdick is no real alternative to Erik Sten.

JFE -

Just to engage in a thought experiment with you - I think there are three potential scenarios for the runoff -

Sten vs Burdick
Sten vs Lister
Lister vs Burdick

I'm sure many on this site will vote for Lister in the last two scenarios. That's fine by me. But what about the first one (which I render the most likely)? Are you really saying that if it comes down to Sten v. Burdick, you'd vote for Sten and reward this fiasco?

jfe: I agree with you about Lister vs. Burdick. I may disagree with Lister on M37 and homelessness as a "lifestyle choice", but his positions are heartfelt, and at least Sten vs. Burdick would offer a clear choice for voters. It would be more a debate of ideas and direction.

Burdick's running primarily because she sensed blood in the water, not because of any strong political ideology or conviction.

Sorry, meant to write "at least Sten vs. Lister would offer voters real choice."

The state ag is too busy talking with Alberto Gonzales. If the O and its preferred sources think this guy is going to give more credibility to the meth crisis it helped to manufacture, they have gotta be kidding. Why do good olds manufacture problems? To divert attention away from the REAL problems in astate/locality/nation.

Sten vs. Burdick is no choice at all. It's incompetent socialism vs. traditional corruption. Either way, you get an aerial tram.

Don't forget knee-jerk negativism -- I wrote above I'd rather see Sten vs. Lister.

Right, OK. But if wishes were horses...

I take it this means you gentlemen will not be voting if indeed it is Sten v. Burdick?

Ill be voting for Sten against Burdick -- I think Sten is the candidate who will stand up to downtown monied interests and the city's powerbrokers.

All the way to municipal bankruptcy.

I was under the impression the City of Portland had a strong bond rating. Am I wrong?

Maybe it's because I'm writing this while on vacation, away from Portland and life's daily conditions, but it seems like the outrage meter is really pegged on this one, laughably so.
I've always thought VOE was a solution in search of a problem, and of course it should have been voted on by the public. When it is, my guess is it will be gone. Given so many other current issues, we shouldn't be dipping into the public purse for this.
But golly, so many people are purple in the face: call the DA! call the AG! Lions, tigers and bears, oh my! Given the newspaper reporting on the topic and the statute itself, it seems likely that any fraud will be detected and punished in due time. Maybe not, but it wouldn't be the first time, would it? Politics has always been corrupt and dirty, but trying to make it better is a worthwhile goal. Maybe VOE would do that, maybe not; I don't think we'll ever find out.
Lastly, if anyone's still reading this, it seems there's too little discussion of the merits of ideas here anymore. I guess it's easier to say so-and-so is friends with this guy, and you know what that means, don't you? Or just say "Opie" is behind it or refer to the vast Oregonian-led conspiracy to do us all in. Or, my favorite, "how Portland". What does that mean? Whatever you want it to? Is it code only true believers understand? Seems like shorthand for actually discussing something to me.
Oh well, outrage sells and keeps the outraged, outraged.

Swimmer has it exactly right. Unless citizens get more involved in our governments and take real and sustained action when political leaders start veering off course, those in power will be tempted to abuse their offices and steer public funds towards their cronies. Thanks to people like the operator of this blog site, the City of Portland is reconsidering how far it is willing to go in support of the tram. However, we need to keep pressure on, or our elected leaders will pour more money into the tram when we stop paying attention. And the tram is likely the tip of the iceberg - there are probably many other tram-equivalents hiding under the rocks. This is unfortunate, but inevitable if citizens don't watch where their public dollars are being spent.

call the DA! call the AG!

Or leave it to the city auditor, who's up for re-election and for whom "clean money" was a signature project. I'm sure he'll do a thorough job of rooting out any fraud.

He probably won't even admit that there are no staff resources at City Hall to enforce the rules.

Charlie:

The City's current bond rating does not include the additional debt that Portlanders will incur if/when they fully fund the FPDR fund (instead of funding it out of the annual operating budget).

Similarly, the rising costs of municipal government will become more pronounced as larger and larger tracts of land a removed from the general fund tax base.

Alice -

Since bond investors have a vested interest in weighing the same information you have, wouldn't they lower the rating based on that info? The market must know about those things, yet it appears they have either discounted that info or rendered it false.

Bond rating companies have a duty to their clients to accurately report a bond's health and to weigh all contingencies. Are you saying you can do a better job rating Portland's bonds than bond companies? That you have more info than the market?

If so, why aren't you selling short and making a bundle?

Are you saying you can do a better job rating Portland's bonds than bond companies? That you have more info than the market?

I think what she's saying is that the rating will be going down soon.

Please don't get nasty on here.

Sirajul,

I'm confident that the bond cabal could find a way to convert a series of bond payments on an already issued bond into a liability that must itself be bonded.

The issue is the ability to extract the maximum tax dollars . . . as an investment scheme . . . because it seems more profitable than actually enduring the capitalist risk associated with traditional private investment. (On the margin as between to the two options.)

Sure, there will be some local folks that make a profit. African slave traders used black on black conflict too for their own personal advantage, which aided of some blacks. It is just money. I would not use the existence of some black beneficiaries as a means of rationalizing the larger game.

Shall I say how the bond rating gamesmanship made PERS bonds more profitable than just a straight forward return? Shall I point to the O's willful participation . . . it is all a matter of timing of entry and exit of a position; and leverage. It is all so plausibly deniable that most folks will never "get it" even when it is spelled out in meticulous detail.

(I was going to try to stay out of this issue in this thread.)

Wow. Comparing Portland's financing activities to slave trading. I never thought I would see this conversation go that direction. Alrighty, then...

Quoting from the Portland budget, 2005-06, Vol. 3:

"The City has been following a capital planning and budgeting process since FY 1974-75. The Council’s commitment to maintaining the City’s capital infrastructure has contributed to the maintenance of a “Aaa” bond rating, the highest level attainable by a municipality, for the last 30 years."

It is my humble opinion that to say that the activities of the council are going to lead to municipal bankruptcy is pure hyperbole. For others to say that they can predict the future of Portland's bond rating seems like just wild speculation.

You all have legitimate arguments with how the city is run. I understand that, and I agree with some of what you say. I apologize if my comments above were taken as nasty. But it seems to me there's a loooooooooooong way to go between what's currently happening and Portland going bankrupt. Portland is no San Diego, nor is it Detroit.

If I turn out to be wrong about Portland's bond rating, call me on it and I'll eat my hat.

I want an elected city attorney position, like that in San Diego. Check the overlap too of bond counsel while your at it. (And Orange County too, and the role played by pensions and investments.) They are well rehearsed.

The bond rating agencies are slow to catch on to fraud and gross negligence (Orange County and San Diego both come to mind on the municipal side). On the Corporate side, both Moody's and S&P were duped by Enron and WorldCom, and they both had numerous "smaller" misses. They have been acting much more defensively subsequent to these highly publicized failures, but I doubt they are paying as much attention to Portland as Jack Bog or Steve Schopp.

That said, Portland is still a decade away from crunch time; San Diego could seek bankruptcy protection much sooner.

The cost of Portland's "revenue bond" backed city services (water and sewer) are likely to get more expensive. I think you will see basic city services (like fire and police response) begin charging a fee for service.

The City of Portland and Multnomah County are incapable of living within their means: if they can't raise taxes at the ballot box, then they'll raise user fees and find new sources of revenue by fiat (cell phones, real estate "transfer" tax, etc). I believe (but can't prove) that the PGE acquisition was motivated by the huge slush fund potential of running a utility. They saw how PGE was "ripping off" the ratepayers, and figured they could reduce rates and find new sources of "transfer fees" to fund Erik's collectivist dreams: they're from the City of Portland, and they're just here to help!

One thing I learned working in government, the good idea fairy is alive and real. And while I thought the good idea fairy was potent in federal government, apparently the Fairy Queen has made her nest in Portland.

The abuses already manifested in the system are not just "bad luck" or an anomaly, regardless of how the supporters spin it. "Clean Elections" and "Voter Owned Elections" and "Beholden to Taxpayers" are nothing more than bumper-stickers.

These abuses are a direct result of combining two volatile elements without any safeguards: ambition and free money. A lot of money may corrupt but a lot of free money corrupts more.

There are no substantive safeguards. There is nothing that separates the serious candidate from the pool of soapbox preachers.

If the premise is that we, as a society, want the average Joe and Jane to be able to run for office on a level playing field, that is a legitimate objective. But, free tax money is not the answer.

I may support a plan if a candidate were given a no interest loan to run in primaries. At least the candidates would have to self-evaluate their ability to be competitive and decide whether they were serious about making a run for office. If the person qualified for a run off, then perhaps a smaller tax grant would be appropriate because at least we would know that the person has a legitimate chance to be elected and the tax money would not go to waste.

Right now, I'm all for tossing the baby out the window with the bath water.

Most of Portland's outstanding debt is NOT "AAA" rated based on it's merit. Rather, virtually all of the City's various municipal bonds carry a credit "enhancement" from a private insurance provider that would pay off the bonds in case of default. This "credit insurance" is what gives most of Portland's outstanding debt the "AAA" credit rating.

The uninsured bonds typically carry a Aa1 to AA2 rating from Moody's, which is still quite high. Standard & Poors generally rate Portland's debt a notch or two lower. Expect the credit ratings to decline as the voter mandated tax limitations and the City's boondoggles continue to grow.

Here's the link to the City's list of all outstanding debt ("credit enhancement" refers to the name of the insurance provider).
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=38189

This "credit insurance" is what gives most of Portland's outstanding debt the "AAA" credit rating.

And it doesn't come for free. The city pays a huge premium for the bond insurance out of the bond proceeds, which is just another way of paying higher interest because your credit isn't really AAA.

We're digging a huge hole, and white lies (or worse) are being told to cover it over.

Read this, then this.

Jack, it is interesting that in your above post when you click on "this" it states how San Diego's bond rating is negatively affected by "lack of audits".

With our PDC not providing yearly audits of our Urban Renewal Districts as required by state law, we are definately in the same position; especially regarding NM's $125M "underfunded" projects.

The PDC, city auditor and news reporters are a joke.
Even as the Tram budget is being demagogued, scapegoated and blame gamed along they show no interest in applying any additional scrutiny to the Greater SoWa budget and problem.

As if it's only the Tram budget collapsing.

What will we hearing soon?

No one told them? They were never given a recent budget?
They didn't bother looking because PDC's Bruce Warner said SoWa is "on track"?
"Fooled me once, again"?