Boyles Campaign Responds

[Editor's Note: The following press release was received by BlueOregon. Given the high interest from our readers in this topic, we have reprinted it verbatim.]

For Immediate Release

For More Information Contact:
Aaron Minoo, Campaign Manager
503-761-2468

Emilie Boyles Responds

James 1:5 clearly states "If any man lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." Emilie Boyles is a woman who is committed to her faith and in times of difficulty relies on her relationship with Jesus Christ for wisdom and guidance. Many of the media have commented on her silence during this past week. Boyles has used this week to continue her work with the poor in Portland. She has continued to write, she has continued to feed people, she has continued to work for a living, and she has continued to meet and pray with members of the conservative Christian community. Because there is a criminal investigation, Boyles is unable to comment on the circumstances that have been highlighted in the media over the past week. However, she would like to clarify several issues to the community:

Emilie Boyles is NOT withdrawing from the for Portland City Commission Seat 2. Continued participation in Voter Owned Elections and return of funds has not yet been decided however, at this time no new campaign obligations are being aquired. Money is not a factor in choosing to participate in the election process.

Erik Sten authored Voter Owned Elections. Either this was yet another example of his lack of ability to understand big-picture consequences of his actions or he intentionally left these holes in the Voter Owned Election Process as a tool to warn average grass-roots citizens to stay out of politics. If he didn't understand the consequences, as he hasn't understood the consequences of other decisions he's made, then he should not be in office. If he intentionally crafted this ordinance as a means of keeping challengers that are not in his circle of cronies, then Portlanders need to assure access to City Hall by voting him out of office.

As she has for over 20 years, Emilie Boyles will continue to work for our city, bringing new resources to the people of Portland and finding new ways of making our city liveable whether or not she is in office. Even as Joseph was set-up by his own brothers and confronted the consequences of their actions, eventually the truth was known by all and he still showed mercy and forgiveness towards them. The circumstances did not stop Joseph from doing good for his people and these circumstances will not stop Emilie Boyles from doing good for the people of Portland.

Volodymr Golovan has been terminated from the Boyles for Portland campaign. The campaign has asked Mr. Golovan to return funds paid to him by the campaign and to be fiscally responsible for damages to the campaign and the City of Portland.

Emilie Boyles now calls on the community of faith in Portland. Now is the time to pray for Portland's future. She asks that every church and synogogue choose this Sunday and every Sunday through May 16th to take a moment and pray for our leaders, our candidates, and for wisdom from God for our city.
###

FOR THE GOOD OF PORTLAND!

Elect Emilie Boyles to Portland City Commission Seat 2
Visit her website at emilieboyles.com

  • no one in particular (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Did anyone else detect a subtle religious undertone in that message?

  • Bill Holmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps an overt overtone.

  • (Show?)

    Is it just me or did she just try and blame Erik Sten for making a system which was too easy for her to defraud. It's Erik's fault that I cheated and lied to steal the city's money because he put the system I used. He didn't understand how easy it would be for her to defraud the city, shame on Erik.

    I hope NO ONE votes for you and you go to jail for stealing form ME and my fellow tax payers.

    Vote Erik Vote OFTEN.

  • Terry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's kinda funny that Emilie Boyles is now blaming her decision to hire a crook on her main opponent, Erik Sten.

    Withdraw, Emilie, withdraw. And give the money back.

    P.S. I betcha that Jack Bog and Phil Stanford are finding it difficult to contain their glee. Hmmm... could it be? Maybe THEY'RE behind this whole fiasco.

  • Jonathan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's a line from the Karl Rove playbook -- she is God's candidate.

  • (Show?)

    Churches and synagogues, but not mosques and temples, I guess.

    The passage about Sten is baffling. If I read it right, she won't say what happened, but whatever DID happen is Sten's fault. She should be elected despite breaking the rules of campaign finance, because Sten wasn't a good enough Commissioner to write rules she couldn't easily break...?

    This press release, sad to say, I think only makes things worse for Boyles, not better.

  • Jesse O (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Erik tempted her with the fruit of knowledge. Or the fruit of public money for elections. That she fell from grace, well, you know the story. Erik's a snake! A snake!

    Emilie might want to know that Jesus was a carpenter, not an elected official.

  • Jeff Bull (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow. I mean....wow. Should we line up to take shots at Boyles' feet, or just join the free-for-all? She's already firing away...

  • (Show?)

    Thank God we've got a crisis communications expert in this race to let Boyles know that it wasn't really her fault, but that of their mutual opponent, Erik Sten.

    Imagine Boyles' relief at learning that the fraud committed by her own campaign was really just a plot by Sten designed "to warn average grass-roots citizens to stay out of politics."**

    **Actual quote, see above.

  • red (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oddly enough, I did pick up a religious overtone. For some reason, I suspect that's what she was going for...weird, huh?

    Is there a problem with her religion? Or are liberals not openminded enough for her obvious Judeo-Christain beliefs?

    I was raised in a very conservative home, and I thought Emilie went a bit far in her piece...but why is there a problem with her faith?

  • (Show?)

    We wanted amateur hour and we got it. Not a reason to toss over VOE but a definite cost of opening up the system.

  • (Show?)

    Paul, note that theoretically, VOE is PREVENTING amateur hour--because if she fudged things to make her nut, then she didn't legally qualify. And in so failing, she marks herself as a less serious candidate, not one who was simply too poor to run for office.

    Red--there's no problem with faith per se, but holding it up like a shield to protect you from criticism strikes me as bad form.

  • (Show?)

    Amateur hour... an understatement. But keep in mind there's no certainty she could have come close working the system legitimately. And blaming Sten? Can it get more pathetic?

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Quite a successful system, this VOE.

    Half the people who turned in qualifying signatures were frauds, one was a union-backed challenger and the other was an incumbent who designed the system.

    I suppose that's about par for a Sten project.

  • Gil (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, pancho, it's society's fault for the Boyle fraud. And her opponent's. And it's religous bigotry. But worse, one of the Voter-Owned candidates is a ONA nurse!

  • Sirajul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hee hee...ha ha ha...HA HA HA HA HA...WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

    Too funny. Wiping tears from eyes.

    (Well, except for the "tax dollars being stolen" part)

  • Randall (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obviously this version of VOE is ludicrously defective and, along with its author should be turned out.

    [Editor's note: off topic comments deleted.]

    Time to bury this monster deep and have some real world pros craft a version that protects the public rather than enrich the scammers.

  • (Show?)

    in our law-based democracy, where we let actual human beings take part in decision-making, one of the clues that we know we didn't get something completly wrong is that the problems that get discovered are not fatal and can be fixed. the mistakes are so important: they lead us to the next step. in the current system (big money buying influence), you get people going to jail, special elections being held, public trust in government eroded further. very expensive in so many ways. these problems with VOE will not cost huge bucks and can be fixed for the next election. people will learn, and they'll figure out how to run a campaign that is serious, competent and legit (maybe why Burdick didn't go the VOE route....)

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I suppose that's about par for a Sten project."

    Nah, Erik's got it figured out he gets his big campaign money from Homer Williams as "seed" money to get going. So pretty much we are were we were before VoE, less $600K of taxpayer money.

  • Arnold (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As I understand it, City Council chose to allow a few election cycles to occur so issues just like this could be discovered and rectified before it went out to the voters. Seems to be working.

    Maybe its just obvious to me, but I would posit that the all important arm of our liberal (not that definition!) society, the free press (and the Oregonian to boot), has done an excellent job of uncovering this "alleged" fraud. Props to Ms. Griffin.

    The system is important and can work. It is just one of many excellent examples of Portland pushing the status quo in an effective and measured pace. Its personally why I live here.

  • (Show?)

    That's one of the most infuriating pieces of BS I've ever read, and boils down to, "God, God, God, not my fault, God, God, God, blame Sten, God God."

    She's a born politician.

  • no one in particular (unverified)
    (Show?)

    red: I think religion is crazy and I think people like Boyles who believe in it are crazy and no flying spaghetti monster can convince me otherwise. Anyone who seems like they're going to throw that much faith in their governing is not someone I'm likely to support.

    You are free to think I'm crazy or intolerant or whatever you want. Yay free society!

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    She had a week to work on a comment and released this trash? Wow, if Boyle knew anything about politics, I'd say she had a complete meltdown, but I suppose we can expect a non-politician to get flustered by adversity. Of course, this also suggests she had no sound political advise either. One of the most important skills of an elected official is knowing where to get good advice. Emily Boyle did not get good advice on this issue.

  • ron ledbury (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Suppose that Portland passed a law that required that ALL candidates must get 1000 signatures and must get 5 dollar donations from each of those signors toward their political campaign.

    Each candidate would thus have sufficient public support to place their name on the ballot; as the public purpose for purposes of overcoming first amendment challenges. If this hurdle was required for all then the clean money element of the law could be isolated out to nothing more than an agreement to limit spending.

    Instead, the clean money law introduces opportunities for legal challenge that are unrelated to the clean money agreement to voluntarily limit spending.

    The flaw is more than ample enough to obtain a judicial demand that Mr. Sten himself return his clean money.

    Let's start here

    "ORS 260.655 Payments for putting name on nomination papers or for performance of political committee duties. No payment or contribution for any purpose shall be made a condition precedent to putting a name on any caucus or convention ballot, nomination paper or petition, or to the performance of any duty imposed by law on a political committee."

    Consider: 1) no money may be demanded for placement on the ballot (per US Supreme Court) 2) Portland does not demand any signatures supportive of placement on the ballot

    Tactically, Ms. Boyles should immediately return the money to the city pending legal resolution. She really cannot spend it now unless she can fully cover later if return is demanded, so this return costs her nothing at all. Then she should insist, in court, that Mr. Sten and other clean money candidates return their clean money. She would be arguing that the clean money law is invalid for all clean money candidates due to the demand for five dollars from some candidates and not others. The demand of five dollars is not even rationally related the clean money, other than the drafter's decision to plop it into the same ordinance. If the five dollar thing is invalidated then the statute upon which Mr. Sten claims the right to demand, and retain, his clean money would be based on a provision that has been voided, thus eliminating his rightful claim.

    Simple.

  • (Show?)

    As a Christian in ministry, I have this to say to Emily.

    Take responsibility for your own criminal behavior instead of blaming others. Return the public money you’ve taken through fraudulent means. And seek to reconcile yourself to the community and to God by asking forgiveness for your sins and by being honest with the authorities during their legal investigations. Only you are to blame for your misdeeds.

  • (Show?)

    Let's start here

    "ORS 260.655 Payments for putting name on nomination papers or for performance of political committee duties. No payment or contribution for any purpose shall be made a condition precedent to putting a name on any caucus or convention ballot, nomination paper or petition, or to the performance of any duty imposed by law on a political committee."

    Except these signatures/contributions weren't to get on the ballot or for "nominating paper". They were to get public financing. These people were all already filed to run for office prior to then going out to try to qualify for public financing.

    That's a big difference.

  • jj ark (unverified)
    (Show?)

    oy, vey.

    er...uh...wow.

    i don't even know where to begin.

    note to self: ABEB: Anybody BUT Emilie Boyles.

  • (Show?)

    Ron--it's all voluntary, buddy. No one's forcing anyone to collect contributions. It's simply in order to gain financing if you want it.

  • Bob (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For the record I live in Washington County and can't vote in this election, but this is just campaign doubletalk and BS. I support VOE btw and think that this is just an example of how it needs to be fixed. Additionally, I am not asking her to step aside nor is really anyone else.

    However, to invoke religion and say we should all pray for Portland infuriates me. She is trying a lot of the same doubletalk that we all hate from Republicans. She is certainly no progressive, we know that now.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, and Ron? That isn't an excerpt from Oregon law.

  • lw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I didn't think Burdick had enough time to write Boyle's spin, especially after all the OHSU recent press releases, OHSU advertisements in the Oregonian, Oregonian "OHSU fluff pieces", expediting seven Oregonian editorials on the tram in two months, and running her own campaign. Remarkable!

  • ron ledbury (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Would you rest your rebuttal on that?

    Try a more exhaustive examination.

    The signatures and contributions are more like that of a poltical party demand within their own membership. The very demand for both signatures and contributions here is the key to converting a neutral law, neutral as to all political parties, into a city-as-a-party thing where the party platform is the agreement to limit spending (spending from any source).

    You need to look at it like an algebraic formula with variables. This is the essence of legal reasoning. Swap the public purpose of limiting spending on campaigns (regardless of public funding or private funding) with either pro or con universal health care. In addressing the five dollar donation is it even necessary to look at or consider the stated public purpose? I think not.

    Could someone argue that disparity of income/wealth, as a legislative-style factual finding, justifies supporting the delivery of public dollars to someone that pledges to advance the issue of universal publicly paid health care? Alternatively, could someone argue that the higher utilization of services and elective procedures by wealthier people supports the medical community to the benefit of poor, as a legislative-style factual finding, and justifies supporting the delivery of public dollars to someone that pledges to advance the issue of opposing universal publicly paid health care?

    The formulation of public policy objectives and preparation of supportive factual findings is nearly infinite. That is, it becomes necessary to isolate out the five dollar thing from the stated public purpose. The five dollar demand, and the demand for signatures, must each stand on their own.

    The actual placement on the ballot is not definitive of eligibility to be declared the winner of an election. A person who's name is on the ballot cannot use that placement to claim that a write-in candidate with more votes cannot be declared the winner. Placement on the ballot is thus irrelevant to the inquiry as to whether the delivery of money can be uniquely conditioned on the signatures and five dollar donations.

    Torridjoe, you got it. The voluntariness of a promise to limit expenditures is an isolated issue. It is isolated from both signatures and from the five dollar donations. Mr. Sten can limit his expenditures all on his own or promise to do so through a signed document. But that issue is not the one that will resolve the case of delivery of dollars to him. Mr. Sten is not spending more than the agreed amount so there is no controversy over that written pledge resulting in a city demand that he return money for violating his voluntary contract. It is inapplicable here.

    Mr. Sten could consider whether the best way to support clean money elections might be to return his money and go back to the drawing board.

    You are free to agree or disagree. I am just putting a contemporaneous analysis into the public record.

    b!x, don't forget my SSM arguments. The proper procedure was to be denied a license and then go to court and seek a equal privileges and immunities violation remedy of declaring the marriage statute void, to the extent of delivery of public benefits but allowance of registration so as to alert the public for commercial purposes that the couple treats their resources as one. It may not be exactly what the SSM advocates want but it would surely have altered the entire legislative debate that followed. That claim, based on a denial, is not altered by M36 or the resolution of the prior case. But hey, you are free to disregard my musings.

  • (Show?)

    I have a more direct question (setting aside the matter of the law citation that wasn't real): By that same argument, running for office at all is "voluntarily" agreeing to a "party platform plank" that you won't use campaign funds to take your family to Disney World, since state law bars that. Are you saying we should just do away with all campaign laws?

  • ron ledbury (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Recheck the statute.

    I used to have my own case law CD with my own document file format and display system that included tailor-made hypertext linking between various legal data sets specific to Oregon. I hope that I would not mess up on pointing to a single section in a statute. The .655 piece is useful.

    I don't expect Ms. Boyles to get the aid of a sufficiently talented lawyer so it could all be just entertaining discussion.

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Where else but at the Portland Public Trough can one convert a $5,000 investment into a $350,000 return?

    This system is so easy to scam, no wonder Boyles is claiming Sten somehow entrapped her by creating a process that invites fraud.

    But fraud isn't even needed to leverage that $150-$350K from Portland taxpayers. Those "signing" the petition do not have to be registered voters, nor must they even be old enough to vote!

    Next election, I would love to see someone turn in 1,000 signatures from elementary and kindergarten students - preferably in crayon. Of course, they each would have "contributed" $5 each, all in untraceable cash.

  • (Show?)

    "Where else but at the Portland Public Trough can one convert a $5,000 investment into a $350,000 return?"

    Arizona, Maine, Albequerque, Connecticut, and pending trials in numerous other localities...aren't you glad you asked?

  • VJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You don't have to be 18 nor registered to vote to give money under the old system either. As inconvenient as it is for opponents of Voter-Owned elections, it's NOT easy to scam our current system AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

    Having said that, even though the Boyles money's going to be recovered, there needs to be improvements made in the implementation of the system. But Portland should keep VOter-Owned Elections.

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joe:

    Do those other states allow pre-schoolers to scribble their names on qualifying petitions? Or have those states yet to become that progressive?

    • Wes
  • (Show?)

    Wes--not that I know of. I'm with most supporters of VOE; I think that's one of the things that needs to be changed for next cycle.

  • (Show?)

    The analogy of return on investment is flawed -- 1,000 people give $5 ($5000), but the return is not those 1,000 people, nor to the candidate herself.

    There are lots of places you can invest $5 and get nothing directly back. Like mailing it to me.

  • (Show?)

    "Where else but at the Portland Public Trough can one convert a $5,000 investment into a $350,000 return?"

    How about the old big money system in which a downtown developer can invest a couple of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and get millions back in special interests tax breaks and giveaways?

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For those VOE supporters who love Portland's system because it is based upon models working successfully(?) in other states, consider this:

    In Arizona, Maine, Mass, North Carolina and Vermont, each of those states require that a "qualified contribution" be made by a REGISTERED VOTER in the JURSIDICTION for which the candidate is running.

    Portland not only permits children to sign the qualifying petition, but also those who are not registered to vote anywhere, including resident aliens not eligible to (legally) vote.

    If Sten and Blackmer wanted this to be a legitimate "showing of interest," then they should have raised the bar and required a showing of actual voter interest.

    • Wes

    see http://www.newrules.org/gov/clean.html

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's important to differentiate between limits on who may vote (or sign petitions) and limits on who may conitrbute to a candidate.

    Under the old system, you didn't have to be a Portland resident (or even an Oregon resident) or of legal voting age. There were very few limits on who could contribute at all.

    The VOE system, at least, forces candidates to raise their money from the same people they serve -- the residents of Portland. That's a step forward.

    Also, has their been a rash of pre-schoolers contributing to campaigns? Do we need to start worrying about the growing power of the Barney Lobby?

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "How about the old big money system in which a downtown developer can invest a couple of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and get millions back in special interests tax breaks and giveaways?"

    You got me there. That explains why Eric Sten's recent C&E report lists these contributors: Robert Ball, Tom Walsh, James Winkler, Homer Williams, Doug Obletz and other downtown developers and builders.

    The difference now is that instead of contributing a couple thousand bucks to Sten, they only needed to pony up $100 each in "seed money." With that crowd, that's lunch money at the Governor or Heathman.

    • Wes
  • (Show?)

    I don't think that Sten -- or any politician for that matter -- is likely to be heavily influenced by a C note. That's the point of limiting contributions and the cost of these campaigns. And of course, a $5 contribution from an everyday citizen will count just as much as from a utility executive making 700K a year.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I don't think that Sten -- or any politician for that matter -- is likely to be heavily influenced by a C note."

    Explain to me again how Erik can take "seed" beyond $5 from Homer anyways. He found a lopphole already.

  • NSGN (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Emilie shouldn't blame Erik Sten; she should blame the shady Ukrainian Volodymyr Golovan to whom she indirectly entrusted her campaign, her reputation and her political career. (Are there even 1000 Ukrainians registered to vote in Portland?) I have worked with Emilie Boyles thru the New Slavic Life Center and, while I found her to be a lovely person, I noticed she was also enamored of the Russian/Ukrainian cultures and she tended to be naive about their willingness to circumvent the system. Russians and Ukrainians come from a country where, in order to survive, they've had to find a way around the law. This does not change once they immigrate. I have seen them abuse the government welfare system, engage in marriage fraud for green cards and financial support, form illegal businesses and participate in all kinds of nefarious activities designed to make money without accountability. Many Americans fall in love with the beauty of those cultures, the magnificent religious and secular rituals, the kindness and seeming generosity, the literature, music, language, etc... and end up getting used, taken and played for the fool. I was one of those people, back in my 20s before I understood the flip, rotten side of the Russian soul. It cost me $10,000, my life savings at the time, and also my heart, to a charming and handsome green card shark. At least it didn't cost my good name or my unwitting involvement in a crime. I actually feel bad for Emilie Boyles. She made a mistake that was not only expensive but also ruinous. She needs to bone up and take responsiblity for that, but not demonize her for being human and wanting to trust in a culture that charmed and enchanted her.

  • (Show?)

    Charlie,

    I don't understand how you can argue that under the old system, developers bought the council with campaign donations, but then be unwilling to point the finger at any on the current council.

    Was the old system corrupt or not? Wouldn't large business interests and down developers be advantaged under any sort of political system? Will VOE really change this?

    I eventually supported VOE for the symbolic value it would have for federal elections, where money really does pervade the system. I still believe that, in Portland, which already has a very open and participative system, VOE will ultimately make little difference, either in who gets elected to office or in what sort of public policy results.

    Torridjoe and others: before you state so quickly that these events demonstrate that the system is working, let's remind ourselves that it was two enterprising journalists at the O which discovered the fraud this cycle. If they hadn't been looking, do you think anyone else would have? Clearly not--Boyles already had her 150k and Tate was next.

    The administrators of the system were clearly asleep at the switch. The citizen's committee was not created with the intention of it having investigatory powers.

  • Robert Ted Hinds (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When I was candidate for the same City Council seat as Boyles, I read the entire ordinance and the administration rules, which explicity state:

    <hr/>

    e. Exchanges for Qualifying Contributions Prohibited. City Code Section 2.10.070 F. prohibits the giving or receiving of any payment, gift or thing of value in exchange for qualifying contributions.

    This provision does not prohibit a participating candidate or solicitor from collecting qualifying contributions at events where food or beverages are served, or where campaign promotional materials are distributed, provided that the food, beverage and campaign materials are offered to all persons attending the event regardless of whether or not particular persons make a qualifying contribution to the participating candidate. Participating candidates may use seed money to purchase such food, beverage or campaign materials as legitimate campaign expenses.

    <hr/>

    What's so hard to understand about that, Emilie? In fact, having spent a few years in internal audit in my own career, I actually looked for loopholes to make an issue of and attack Sten. However, I must support Sten and Blackmer on this one. It looked like they did a pretty thorough job. Boyles and Tate did get caught and they are going to get in a lot of trouble. This is not the Water Bureau blunder. Now if Boyles actually got elected, or even past the primary with fraudulent signatures and contributions, that would be a real fiasco.

    I think the greater message is that we need a certain threshold of education and experience to qualify to even run for office, like we have with the City Auditor who must be a CPA, CMA, or CIA. I don't think we want to be too restrictive, but shouldn't we require a bachelors degree, transcripts, and verifiable employment of at least 5 years, just as an example? And what about the candidate filing forms? In the case of Boyles, she doesn't list any of her prior employers. She claims to have four years of college, but has no formal degree conferred upon her, so that could have been four years taking one class a term. Shouldn't we know GPA and hours completed?

    Maybe Boyles was genuinely too stupid to read or understand the city code that she signed under penalty of law to uphold and we should be sorry for her (I'm not), but if that's the case she shouldn't have been wasting the City's time and money by running in the first place.

  • ron ledbury (unverified)
    (Show?)

    RTH: "Maybe Boyles was genuinely too stupid to read or understand the city code"

    Maybe we should require voters to pass a literacy test too.

    <h2>But, of course, that might offend the US Supreme Court, even if a city code made it a crystal clear condition and made sure staff orally announced the precondition and vigorously administered a test.</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon