Middaugh/Fish: No, don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

I support the voter-owned elections system, but the implementation of it leaves much to be desired. In particular, it seems that the statute that created the program and the rules that implemented it never conceived of the idea that a member of the city council might resign right in the midst of the election season.

Given that astonishingly stupid oversight, the only way forward was to use the rules as written. When Erik Sten resigned, with just a few short weeks before the VOE qualification deadline, two major candidates jumped into the race. Nick Fish, a two-time candidate, decided to go the traditional route of private financing. Jim Middaugh, Sten's chief of staff, successfully qualified by collecting 1000 checks of $5 each.

From the O:

[The Citizen Campaign Commission] and the City Council, both decided not to institute different rules midstream for the May 20 primary race to replace Sten. They gave candidates in that special election teh same rules to qualify for and get $150,000 in public campaign funds as candidates in the three other, regular council races. But if none of Sten's would-be replacements win more than 50 percent of the vote in May, the top two finishers would go to a run-off. And if Middaugh went to a run-off, current rules say he'd get $200,000 for the two-month campaign -- the same as candidates in regular races headed for a November runoff.

So, both candidates participated in the process under one set of rules. But on Monday night, the Citizen Campaign Commission decided to change the rules in the middle of the game.

On Monday night, a volunteer commission that helps the city oversee its system of public elections financing recommended lowering the amount city council candidate Jim Middaugh would recieve for a July 15 special election from $200,000 to $150,000.

The $50,000 drop may not seem like a big change - just pennies per Portland taxpayer. But it followed weeks of debate among candidates, City Council members and others about the fairest way to run a special election under the city's two-year-old public-financing system. That system does not include special provisions for special elections, though the need for such rules was obvious from the start.

In my view, changing the rules in the middle of the game is always a bad idea. The rule changes they made here are particularly bad - since they go right to the heart of the original decision-making process by both campaigns.

In particular, Jim Middaugh made a strategic decision to go after the public financing under the assumption that it would be a particular amount of money. If he had known it would be $150k rather than $200k, would he have gone clean-money? Hard to know - but that's information that should been available before, not after, his decision.

And it doesn't affect only Middaugh. Nick Fish is also operating under the assumption that he can raise up to $200k in the runoff election. The "pain" of squeezing him down to $150k is probably less for him, but again: he made a strategic choice based on the existing rules. Different rules; possibly a different choice.

I know that a lot of the VOE advocates think that there's too much money in politics, but if you squeeze it down too far, then no one will participate -- and worse, you just wind up empowering independent expenditures to play in that special runoff election. Media will be cheap, voters will be listening, and yet the only players with big money will be outside parties. (And remember: when the initial amount comes down, the hard cap comes down with it -- the point at which the VOE candidate stops getting a match against private fundraising and independent expenditures. [Can I say again how stupid it is that there's a hard cap on the match?])

Last thought: If the rules of the game are changed in the middle of the campaign, will Middaugh get a chance to opt out? That seems only fair to me. After all, he signed up under the assumption he'd get $200,000 to run his general election campaign.

Better yet, will Fish get a chance to opt in? Also seems fair, but much more controversial.

[Note: I'm not working for either candidate in this race, nor have I endorsed either one. I consider them both allies and friends. Some people may perceive the above as weighing in on one side or the other, which it is not. I just think the rules shouldn't change in the middle of the game. It's just another example of the auditor and his team doing their damnedest to screw this up. It's hard to believe that they support the program. With friends like these...]

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Auditor's implementation of VOE has been a travesty: unprofessional, short-sighted, and often just plain dim-witted. Had a bureau done this with any other city program, the audit would be scathing. Oh, the irony.

    As it is, I'm not sure the difference between $200k and $150k in a two-month race is all that significant, but it's certainly better than Leonard and Potter's idea to take it down to $66k. The really disgusting thing here is that the Council has oversight of the program to begin with. Even if the Council legally needs to have ultimate authority over the program, policy decisions should be placed in the hands of an independent body, similar to the Planning Commission.

    As it stands now, we have Leonard, who has endorsed Fish, and Potter, who's chief of staff has endorsed Fish, trying to change the system to benefit Fish. And we have Sten, who of course has endorsed his own chief of staff Middaugh, arguing to keep the system tilted in favor of Middaugh. The fact that none of these guys see the ethical conflict is really disturbing.

    VOE is a great idea, but it's almost certainly going to go down to defeat in 2010 due to the incompetent oversight of the Auditor and the political gamesmanship of the Council. Hell, I love the idea but I'll still probably vote against it without major changes.

  • joeldanwalls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The fact that none of these guys see the ethical conflict is really disturbing.

    Yes, well, these are the same geniuses that brought us the aerial tram at a cost over-run of about 400%. These are the same geniuses who ignore city ordinances for changing street names when the ordinances hinder their political agendas. These are the same geniuses who can't find the money to fix potholes, but can find the money to study streetcars.

    You might also mention Sam Adams' ethical problems as well....

    As for the middle-of-the-game rule changes: that argument rests on the problematic assumption that there were rules of the game in the first place. It would appear that the "rules" have instead relied heavily on such time-honored principles as giving one's golfing companions a mulligan, or what my child refers to as a "do-over".

    I no longer support VOE. I will go back to supporting it only if the city enacts a detailed ordinance that lays out how the system is supposed to work.

  • (Show?)

    "Yes, well, these are the same geniuses that brought us the aerial tram at a cost over-run of about 400%."

    Damn their control over the cost of steel!

  • Gary Blackmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I take issue with describing the lack of rules on special elections as “an incredibly stupid oversight.” First, the Citizen Campaign Commission had planned to and had been working on those rules when Commissioner Sten announced his resignation. Second, special elections under City Code are nothing like the means used to fill vacancies in Maine or Arizona so we were in new territory, trying to compress a 7-month qualification process into 7 weeks.

    Kari’s position is that the rules shouldn’t be changed, and that was the Commission’s position in its letter to City Council in January, which the Council seemed to accept. Two months later City Council rescinded the ordinance applying the current rules to the special election runoff and asked the Citizen Campaign Commission to develop a new dollar amount for a runoff, which it did with some reluctance. Without an ordinance allocating campaign funds, there is a question whether Middaugh would be eligible for any money in a runoff.

    One commenter thinks that an audit would thrash me for these problems. As an auditor I will tell you that no new idea, especially about campaign finance, has ever gone from the drawing boards to reality without problems. The Commission and I have fixed the problems that occurred, and made improvements after each campaign season. To put it in context, the Oregon Legislature has been trying to get control of the traditional campaign finance system for decades, and they haven’t solved it yet.

  • (Show?)

    I take issue with describing the lack of rules on special elections as “an incredibly stupid oversight.” First, the Citizen Campaign Commission had planned to and had been working on those rules when Commissioner Sten announced his resignation.

    Gary, could you please explain to us why those rules weren't in place before the 2006 cycle - in the initial set of adminstrative rules?

    Resignations, deaths, indictments, and the rest are a fact of life. All the rest of our election law contemplates these scenarios - and the variations that ensue based on the timing. Why didn't the VOE system?

  • jhbjrpdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sure let's talk about the "authority" of the Citizen Campaign Commission. I was very interested in attending the meeting to discuss the special election. I paid close attention to the minutes of the last meeting and noted they were going to decide the issue at their next monthly meeting. I am signed up on Portland Online for meeting notifications. I got a notification the on Tuesday for the Special Election meeting. The only problem was that the meeting had already occured. Yup. The CCC sent out a press release on a Saturday for a meeting Monday. I guess the citizens they wanted at that meeting were most specifically people who think exactly like they do about elections. Whether they followed the letter of the law about the meeting notification is irrelevant. They violated the spirit of public meetings and accountability. They behaved in a way that was very "un-Portland."

    The CCC is an organization that operatings under the assumption that VOE candidates have some sort of moral authority. They are not trying to think broadly about campaigns and fairness as much as they are advocates for their point of view. Spending taxpayer money on campaigns does not assure us that we will have clean elections. The nature of an campaign is completely dependent upon the ethics of the candidate. We have seen plenty of backroom dealing and outright fraud in VOE. The CCC is mostly vested in proving their idea is right.

    But I guess we have to thank the CCC. In their singleminded quest to prove themselves right they have laid the groudwork for the voters to reject a concept that those same voters most likely would not have approved in the first place. My hat is off to my fellow citizens for providing this service to the city.

  • (Show?)

    To the anonymous poster above,

    Your experience causes me some concern, and I will inquire about our notification process at our next meeting (second May 12, 5:30 pm, Auditor's office.)

    I would like to offer my assurances, for whatever they're worth, that the accelerated meeting schedule was necessary in order to make a recommendation to City Council in time for them to act, without the need to resort to an emergency session. There was no scheme to exclude the public. We had input at that meeting from a fairly wide variety of people. (As of now I can't speak to technicalities of the online notification procedures, I am not very familiar with them.)

    Please do bring your views directly to City Council. It's my understanding that their decision will be made this coming Wednesday morning; I'd imagine that testimony from the public will be taken. You can also contact Commissioners directly, of course.

    In the future, please feel free to contact me directly, as well. I don't want to speak for my fellow Commission members, but I'd imagine they would be open to your views as well. I am available at 503-453-9766.

    -Pete Forsyth Citizen Campaign Commission member

  • jhbjrpdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not Anonymous. Just click the name for the life story.

    I appreciate the response. I just looked at the minutes of the meeting.

    ". . . fairly wide variety of people."

    Hmmm.... I can't tell if you are damning with faint praise or trying to be ironic. A couple of reporters, the usual VOE crew and Middaugh campaign staff.

    I look forward to the conversation at next week's Council meeting.

    JHB.

  • Jerry Moss (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Has anyone thought that the other candidates in this race had less than a month to raise 1000 $5.00 donations and that they are at a huge disadvantage to an insider that is able to have prior knowledge that his boss is resigning. I also believe in the voe but not when an insider is given information that the others in the race did not have and then claims that he is a grass roots candidate and owes nothing to the money interests in town!

  • Ed Garren (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A few thoughts here worth noting.

    I don't think Jim is lying, or "cagey", but did it ever occur to anyone (including Jim) that he may be a pawn in a much bigger chess game, that he is not even aware of?

    Even Jim admitted to me that he was surprised by the groundswell of support that quickly surfaced for his campaign. I guess he didn't consider that it might have come from sources that extended beyond his own circle.

    We also know that Erik "made a few phone calls". Did any of the other "Voter Owned" candidates have a City Commissioner make "a few phone calls" on their behalf?

    The real issue here is not just about Jim, or Erik, or whoever else may be moving pieces on this chess board. The real issue is that the integrity of "Voter Owned Elections" has been seriously compromised by some people in city hall who had months to set up the game before inviting in the other players.

    A few people have said to me, "This isn't the Portland I grew up in (or remember)." To that I have offered that once Portland popped up on the national real estate scene, everything changed because the stakes are much higher. After decades in Florida and California, I can assure you that the things some people will go through to make money off of prime real estate are really God awful.

    Don't take my word for it, rent and watch the John Sayles movie, "Sunshine State" and take a glimpse into the world that I grew up in. Then maybe you will understand why all of these recent revelations look so familiar to me.

    Regards, Ed Garren

connect with blueoregon