The SUN debacle is further proof that it was the Mean Girls, and not Linn, who were the source of most of the problems on the board. Even Lonnie acknowledges it. Good luck to Ted Wheeler, and hopefully he stays on the good side of the two remaining MGs...

There is no doubt the county is faced with difficult choices about how to spend its money. But the "SUN debacle", I think that is a good label, is an example of how poorly the commissioners have approached the problem. Rather than careful, long public deliberation that involves all the various concerned citizens and stakeholders, decisions are being made behind closed doors. Then they are sprung on those ultimately responsible, the people of Multnomah County, at the last minute. And any attempt at public discussion or debate is responded to with bullying and threats.

Pointing fingers at Diane Linn or the "Mean Girls" is a waste of time. We can only hope that with new leadership and Serena Cruz finally gone the county can right itself. They can start by not treating budget decisions as some kind of academic exercise and really engage the whole community in setting priorities.

It should be kept in mind that Commissioner Cruz Walsh, Commissioner Naito and Commissioner Rojo were the critical players in negotiations with the Speaker that secured the Portland Public School gap authority. They got the job done for Portland kids.

Disagree with their policy views on this matter if you like, and I do have serious concerns about the issue that I have expressed, but having known Serena for nine years, I can tell you that she would not sacrifice the well being of Portland kids just to hurt Chair Linn.

That may very well be - but her dismissive quote about the SUN program in Tuesday's Tribune ("(I)f I'm comparing cheerleading, sewing and knitting to programs that directly impact the lives of children and their families, they don't compare.") shows that she doesn't understand - for whatever reason - just what the SUN program provides (hint: it's not about cheerleading, sewing or knitting - it's about affordable and safe afterschool childcare, which does directly impact the lives of children and their families, particularly working parents.)

At this late date - especially after being barraged with public testimony, letters, articles in the local media, etc. etc. etc. - that level of misunderstanding - not to mention the snarky commetn - is just unacceptable.

At this late date - especially after being barraged with public testimony, letters, articles in the local media, etc. etc. etc. - that level of misunderstanding - not to mention the snarky commetn - is just unacceptable.

It doesn't make any difference how much information you get if you choose not to listen to it or think you are too smart to need to listen to it.

They can't deliver services for free, no matter how much voters (and the Oregonian) wish they could.

The commissioners have spent well over $1 million each of the last two years on a budget process designed to help them make decisions about less than 5% of the budget. There is absolutely no evidence that investment had any impact on the outcome other than to allow the commissioners to circumvent the open meeting laws and make their decisions behind closed doors.

So its fine to say - "They had no choice." - but in fact they did have choices.

Of course you are right, there is not enough money for the county to do everything it needs to do. But to a large extent that is the fault of the commissioners who have done just about everything possible to lose public confidence in the county.

having known Serena for nine years, I can tell you that she would not sacrifice the well being of Portland kids just to hurt Chair Linn.

I think there are an awful lot of people who have watched the county close up for the last few years who would disagree with you They have sacrificed virtually every group the county serves with their sniping, petty bickering and self-destructive vindictiveness.

That's an interesting allegation,

Its not an allegation. If you add the money they have paid to their Minnesota consultants and the time taken of senior county managers to participate in "teams" that both develop strategies and evaluate programs unrelated to their own departments, there is little doubt that they have spent at least a million dollars each year. That is unrelated to the normal process of departments planning and budgeting. That is in addition to their own staff, the budget staff, the chair's staff and the normal staff time taken in departments to develop budget proposals.

And that does not count the lost opportunities of having those department directors focusing on identifying innovative ways for their own departments to deliver services at less cost.

o you have evidence that Open Meeting laws were broken?

I said they circumvented them. As an example, they had county staff develop a computer program that allowed each of them to anonymously rank programs and then used the collective results as the basis for their budgeting. The program was designed to prevent a record from being kept of how each commissioner voted to prevent public records requests. Whether that violates the open meeting law is questionable, but it certainly circumvents a public process where elected officials are responsible for their votes.

Your post reminds me of a lot of Republican rhetoric.

And that sounds like hokum. Since when is arguing government does not have enough money to provide needed services "Republican rhetoric?"

On the contrary, often the best, most innovative results come from the combat of fully engaged intellects - in both government and the private sector.

No doubt - I agree entirely. But, in fact, they didn't engage the private sector or the public. Instead they had teams made up almost entirely of county employees. This year they did add a handful of citizens to the mix. But they never enlisted a broad cross section of the community directly in the process and they actively resisted any effort to do so.

So where are those innovative results? As you might expect, there aren't any. Cutting needed programs is no innovation at all. Nor is blaming the voters for not doing what you haven't asked them to do. Its not as if the county commission offered up an extension of the county income tax and the voters turned it down. They decided not to even try because they lacked the credibility to get it passed. Do you suppose they thought sniping at the chair about the library director, the snow days, Wapato, library security, etc helped?

The county's problems certainly aren't entirely a creation of the commissioners. But they have done precious little to help and a lot of harm. Hopefully that will change with some new leadership.

[Comment falsely impersonating Lars Larson deleted. -editor.]

Today's Oregonian, on the opposite page from Serena Cruz Walsh's commentary, carries a huge editorial arguing that the county has the money to fund SUN without cutting other programs. Not only that, the editorial says the county could also open the Wapato Jail. Much of the editorial's reasoning concerns budgetary accounting and I'm not familiar with the specifics.

With the caveat that this is coming from The Big O, it seems that the case for cutting SUN in favor of other programs is not that strong.

folks who propose tax cuts should be required to propose spending cuts to match.

In this case, it wasn't Bill Sizemore or Grover Norquist. The decision not to renew the Multnomah County Income tax was made by the county commissioners. I am not sure how they avoid responsibility for the consequences.

And while county services have been cut over the past few years, the county commissioners have been increasing spending for their own operations. Not only for the expensive new budget process, but for their personal "legislative staff". Multnomah County is the only county in the state that has full time county commissioners who are elected from districts solely to function as a legislative body. I don't think any other county provides any personal staff for its commissioners, muchless 3 FTE's. And the budget process provided no opportunity at all for anyone to evaluate whether that level of funding was needed or appropriate.

Of course the commissioner's budgets won't pay for the Sun program. But which does Multnomah County need more, more Sun School administrators or more personal staff for each commissioner?

You complain, for example, that having managers work in "teams" (your quotes - not mine) to give an outside perspective on budgets outside their departments is wasted money

You are obviously not familiar with the county budget process. The staff was not giving "outside perspective on budgets". They were developing a strategy for one of the county's goals, for instance "all children in Multnomah County to succeed in school" or "Multnomah County to have a thriving economy". They then ranked county program "offers" on how well they helped to accomplish that goal based on that strategy.

Moreover, the term "wasted" is yours. Is there value in having smart people spend time advising the Commissioners? Yes. Does that mean it is worth the cost of 100's of hours of senior manager's time? No, it doesn't. Are there more important things for the county to spend money on? Yes, I think there are. Including the Sun schools.

even that is much less than the "millions" you originally alleged: $225,000. Mind you, that's no small change,

I am not sure that figure is correct, but the consultants are not the largest part of the cost in any case. The million dollars is, I think, a lowball figure when you look at the amount of staff time and other resources that went into that one part of the budget process. I doubt the commissioners have any idea of the total cost. And while there is plenty of waste in the corporate world, I doubt there are very many cultures where anyone would be allowed to make use of resources on such a large scale without an accounting of what the costs were going to be in advance. And the argument, "well we have to pay people anyway, so it isn't really a cost" wouldn't have much sway in that discussion.

And you are right, $1 million won't pay for the Sun schools. And the problem when someone says "where would the money come from" is that the standard is always the one you want to apply - was that other program a "waste" of money. Rather than the appropriate standard which is would the money have been better spent on this program.

I'm frankly surprised that Multnomah would attempt something so sophisticated, but am not surprised that they missed the point.

That is what they paid the consultants. Each of teams also ranked the programs (I think they had the same anonymous process) and then discuss them with the commissioners, which may make it closer to the process you describe.

Wideband Delphi is a technique to try to defuse the natural human tendency to tell your bosses (and friends) what they want to hear, and to give loud extroverts inordinate sway in group decisions.

Whether properly used or not, it clearly didn't accomplish those goals. Which was my point. The final measure of whether the investment in a new budget process was worth the money was in the results. After two years, there is no evidence that the results are any different than without all the new costs.

I also think the new process it engrandizes the role of the commissioners which may explain why they are so infatuated with it. But, i.In the end, the commissioners are making choices among a small handful of programs while the decisions on how the other 95% of the budget is spent are made at the department level and lower. The fact is that the decisions of the directors of individual departments have far more potential to improve county program's performance than the decisions commissioners make.

<h2>Steve Maurer: you ask for "hard facts". Here is one, the County Commissioners could stop giving severance packages to only a few "dismissed" employees and you could achieve over a $1M savings that would pay for SUN.</h2>