Let's not get so restictive of our elected officials that we become stupid about it. If I invite State Sen. Vicki Walker to address Baker County Democrats and anybody else I can get into the house to listen with the idea of burnishing Democratic image in NE OR, shouldn't she be compensated for costs? I know, this is one of the most wonderful places in the country and all...

The Blazers have no issues that Potter would be lobbied for with that ticket, any more than Walker, in my example.

When the Mayor gets a comped ticket to, say, a charity dinner - is the only value exchange the value of the plate of food that he eats? Or does the community benefit by getting a chance to interact with him outside work?

1) I am not sure that most public officials consider those events "outside work", they consider them part of their work.

2) The "community" doesn't get a benefit, the people who paid to attend the event do. It becomes a way to buy access for a select group of people.

3) If a charity follows the rules, they only provide a deduction on tickets over and above the value of the entertainment (including food) they provide. If Potter gets fed dinner, he can pay for the dinner the same way everyone else does. Theoretically the rest of the cost of the ticket is a charitable contribution, not something of value.

I think people underestimate the corrosive nature of these freebies. There are certainly times when it isn't corrosive, but I am not sure the benefits of those few examples outweigh the costs of the many examples, like the Blazer tickets, where there is little benefit. If the Mayor wants to cheer the Blazers, he can buy a ticket in the cheap seats.

Like it or not, they are the "Portland" Trailblazers

The Trailblazer are a private entertainment business that uses the city's name to promote themselves. Being a fan is not part of the Mayor's job.

Kari,

Excellent point. I was at the White House for a transportation summitt meeting last week (where the Bush administration essentially said they werent going to pay for our nations infrasructure anymore) when I heard the Potter story. I just shook my head. I dont personally know the man but know enough about him that he was probably dragged kicking to the game as it is not one of his favorite pastimes. But, afterall, he is the mayor and like it ot not the Blazers have a huge financial impact on our region. To him I am sure this was not a gift but an obligation. The public isnt stupid. They know the difference between someone who takes a dozen or more comp tickets to the game during the season and someone who shows up now and again to recognize the importance of the enterprise to the city's economy. Should mayors or legislators really be prohibited from accepting lunch with the folks at the senior center because someone says it is a gift? People want you to do your job and meeting people on their terms (and lunch, breakfast or a dinner with the 4-H Club at their annual banquet is part of that responsibility). People dont want you jetting off to Bandon Dunes for free golf or getting season passes to Timberline.They understand the difference.

On Friday my Transportatiom Committee met with the Washington State Transportation Committee in a joint legislative meeting for the first time in history. It ran from 11:00-2:30pm. We had planned a working lunch so as to hear all the testimony possible. As the host state, I wanted box lunches brought in for my members and our Washington legislative guests.ODOT couldnt provide it because they were concerned it violated their rules. Fine. The Senate President's office wouldn't pay for it because they were concerned that the new rules were unclear as to whether they could do it. The elections office said they were no longer sure that I could use my campaign account to pay for our guests lunches because it "might be considered an in-kind campaign contribition." Is this Doonesbury? The average Oregonian would laugh at this comedy.They know the difference between perks and doing the job they ask you to do.

P.S. I ended up paying for the lunches myself out of my own personal checking account. I didnt want our Washington friends to know we in Oregon cannot distinguish between undue influence and undue restriction.

Im an intern at the state capitol. I also like to cook. I baked some scones and brought them into the office. How devious is that? Should we really believe that the scones that I made (and don't you doubt for a second that they weren't the most delicious scones ever) bought me some level of excessive influence? We should stop worrying about gifts and start worrying about giant checks that flow into the campaign war chests of politicians. What really matters to a politician, the prime rib at the Ag PAC dinner (which I hear is quite good) or the thousands of dollars in support that they will give you on election day. While food does provide access, so does the campaign contribution. Every level of private sector business dines clients. Humans are inherently social creatures that use gifts to show meaning. That isn't going to change and until the campaign contributions stop flowing like the Columbia we should really stop complaining

The average Oregonian would laugh at this comedy.They know the difference between perks and doing the job they ask you to do.

But do elected officials? Is attending Blazer games really in the mayor's job description? Is that really what passes for community outreach?

Its interesting that you have a problem with having legislators buy their own lunch. There are plenty of non-profit meetings held every day that are brown bags where people have to pay for their own lunch. That is true of most business association meetings as well. I don't think there would have been anything wrong with the taxpayers buying lunch, but I don't think it was required.

I happened to be at that game and as the Oregonian stated, the funniest part was when they put Potter's face up on the board he looked bored. Contrast that to when they put Art Aleksakis's face up and he was clearly having a good time.

Personally, I though it was and still think it is funny. I also frankly see no problem with, as stated above, someone who is supposed to build relationships with business accepting tickets to ONE game. More than a few I can see the problem but it was only one game.

I also frankly see no problem with, as stated above, someone who is supposed to build relationships with business accepting tickets to ONE game.

The problem is that it isn't ONE. I would bet it is several such events each week. And it is not building relationships with a cross-section of the public. The people getting these opportunities represent an elite with a narrow range of interests. Essentially are buying face time with an elected official who, as a result, spends a lot of his time hearing about and considering the concerns of that elite.

On the other hand, if you asked the Mayor to attend at least one meeting of every neighborhood association at least once each year to discuss their concerns, the response would be,truthfulky, that he doesn't have time. And part of why he doesn't have time is that he is spending it with people that are much more sophisticated at providing themselves those opportunities. Businesses aren't spending money on politicians because they think they are great people, they spend money because it serves their business interests.

Kari, You failed to include an important part of Amanda's blog entry! She said that if the mayor felt he was expected to go to these events, he should pay from them from city funds and be prepared to justify the expense.

That is a big difference from saying he should pay for the events out of his pocket. I far prefer this myself, as it removes any possible expectations from the event organizers. Perhaps if such expenses showed up regularly, we citizens might not feel attending sports events (or whatever) was actually mandatory for our mayor!

Another argument for using city funds is that we will know the mayor (or whoever) chose to go the event for an official reason. If it turns out the official in question always goes to the coliseum and never goes to the "shnitz", we might question just how official it is. If an event organizer offers a paid ticket, we can't know anything about the priorities involved.

Have the mayor pay for tix out of the city budget? Oh, right. Whattaya say we ask Lars and Bill and Don? Hey, guys, what do you think about taxpayers footing the bill to send the mayor to see the 'Blazers and the symphony and Do Jump and the Beavers and ZooLights?

Your ears blistering yet?

The mayor goes to one elitist corporate function (the Trailblazers) and it's an elitist corporate function. The mayor goes to a Blazers game and a 4-H show and the home and garden show at the convention center and the Jazz Festival and lends a hand at a Habitat for Humanity build and and and..., and when he does all that it's not elitist and it's not corporate, it's showing municipal support for the municipality. I've seen Tom Potter at half a dozen charity events that I paid to get in. Did he pay to get in? I don't care. It's good to see the mayor supporting good causes. Kari's right, from beginning to end.

Again, my point. Let's write rules that stop the bad stuff, while avoiding the pickle-nitpicking.

The problem, of course, is that those "pickle-nitpicking" rules are needed because some elected officials will take a pickle exception to include a solid gold paper weight in the shape of a pickle. And others will argue that since their was a pickle on that sandwich they were served in Maui, the whole vacation comes under the exception. Its just not that important that they be able to sit down and eat lunch without paying for it.

Lets be clear. Senator Metzger apparently was so embarrassed to suggest his fellow legislators would have to buy their own lunch that he paid for it out of his own pocket. What does that tell you about their expectations?

Invite a group of legislators to a two-day conference at Sun River and you will have a pretty good turnout. Try to get them to a two day conference in the conference room at Portland Impact and you won't get quite such an enthusiastic reception. And that is really the problem, the people who can pay for perks get the time and attention that those who can't don't.

The public paying for a the mayor's sandwich at the senior center seems like pretty thin gruel for the outrage manufacturers. But when you start making public policy based on Lars you are in deep doodoo. He's a fricking entertainer, he is going to pick up something to get his audiences hormones worked up. I agree, the Mayor would have a hard time justifying spending public money on a Blazer ticket as part of his job. But then wasn't that sort of the point to begin with.

I dunno, those seats are great (I sat in them later this season, I know one of the Blazers staffers) but I can't say I would've paid $1000 for them.

This was not a "community" event. If you actually think that the mayor was accessible during the game, you're only fooling yourself. Charitable events, fine. Dinners where he speaks or is part of a panel, great. I'll go as far as being a guest in a "sky box," but seats on / near the floor, NO! The only person served was the mayor himself.

An observation I've made is that Ross views the Blazers differently than, I think it's safe to say, a majority of Portlanders. Been here all my life, I'm as ethics-concerned as anyone, and I have no problem with this at all. Ignoring the impact of major sports franchises on their host cities is silly.

I think the most disturbing issue here is the fact that Art Aleksakis's face was shown on the big screen. wtf?

Jack Bog's problem with people getting things is that no one gives him anything (other than the finger).

[THE WOLFE gives Jack Bog the finger]