Why all is not lost at the Oregonian.
There's just one small thing I'd need first from the people trying to kick Adams out of City Hall: a news conference.Sometime soon, the would-be recallers need to rent a hotel room, alert the media and make the big names behind this second attempt to ax the mayor available to answer questions. Not just Jasun Wurster or Avel Gordly, the novice political consultant and former Oregon legislator who have been the most visible faces of this drama thus far.
I'd like a chance, for example, to hear car dealer and recall donor Ron Tonkin expand on his comments to radio host Lars Larson that he's contemplating running for mayor if Adams is ousted. Perhaps he could answer a few questions about Portland's quirky commission form of government, and why he thinks he'd the best person to run it.
I'd appreciate an opportunity to ask Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle where he was this summer, when Wurster was putting together his plucky if amateurish first try with little money and few big-named public supporters.
I'd like Peter Stott, another supporter, to tell us how he thinks Adams' misdeeds compare to those of former U.S. Sens. Ted Stevens of Alaska and Larry Craig of Idaho, two of the many Republican candidates he's supported financially over the years.
And I'd love to hear Karin Hansen, the wife of former Mayor Tom Potter who apparently talked Gordly into leading this second effort, tell us whether Adams was among the "evil doers" undermining her husband's tenure back in 2008, when she wrote a blog post blasting the rest of the City Council. Hansen is an articulate and passionate advocate for a lot of good progressive causes. I'm sure she could convince a room full of journalists and the general public that this is more than a personal vendetta against a guy who helped make her husband's one term fairly miserable.
None of this should be difficult. After all, they're on the side of the angels.
Thoughtful. Well-written. Reasonable. Adding important information to the conversation.
Thanks, Anna.
|
October 31, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (64 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Marie | Oct 31, 2009 3:10:59 PM
The real reason to kick out Adams have nothing to do with sex:
1. Wasting money on streetcars.
2. Giving millions to developer buddies in the sowhat
3. Forcing high density on Portland's neighborhoods.
4. Signing on to climate action plan while jetting around country.
5. Not realizing that green jobs destroy real jobs by 2:1
6. Driving a pickup truck for years while promoting green.
7. Promoting money wasting green building.
8. Pushing alternative energy that no one can afford.
9. Pursuing every nutty progressive idea that comes along.
Posted by: Marie
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Oct 31, 2009 3:28:06 PM
I suspect most progressives believe Adams to be a terrible mayor, of poor character. The effort to defend the mayor is really more about feeling anger toward the creeps coming after him, than it is about wanting him to finish this awful term.
Kinda like when someone calls your brother a no good dirt bag. Even though you may agree, it is your duty and honor to punch the name caller in the nose. Problem is, after you throw the punch your brother is still a dirt-bag. It may be time to let your brother fend for himself.
Posted by: Matt Davis | Oct 31, 2009 4:54:00 PM
So you're not still amazed at what passes for journalism around here?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 31, 2009 5:53:50 PM
So you're not still amazed at what passes for journalism around here?
It's almost like you feel guilty about something here, Matt. Care to purge?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 31, 2009 5:54:54 PM
Marie:
If you don't like the guy's policies, then vote him out during the regular election. That's what they're for.
Recalls, IMO, shouldn't be for disliking policy. They should be for poor conduct while in office.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 31, 2009 5:55:11 PM
Poor conduct=doing something unethical or criminal.
Posted by: Marie | Oct 31, 2009 6:01:37 PM
re: Recalls, IMO, shouldn't be for disliking policy. They should be for poor conduct while in office.
Recalls are to throw the bums out.
In this case the political climate has changed to one of financial responsibility and there are some big names finally coming out of the woodwork to do the needed housecleaning.
Posted by: Richard | Oct 31, 2009 6:52:23 PM
Then there's this which Anna needs to deal with.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/anna_griffin/index.ssf/2009/10/sam_adams_recall_effort_needs/4897/comments.html
Posted by goodmanpeter
October 31, 2009, 2:54PM
Dear Ms. Griffin,
Yes, please shine some light.
Can you start by responding to allegations by Willamette Week
concerning your inability to maintain your journalistic integrity?
WW states that while you were the city hall reporter you became
personally involved in the fight between Adams and Bob Ball by going to Ball's
home and leaving him your business card and a note demanding that Ball
apologize to Adams.
Read #8 http://wweek.com/editorial/3533/12744/
I was shocked when I happened upon this information
as I've trusted The Oregonian to be unbiased and I've seen
nothing in your columns or in The Oregonian that explain this incident.
I hope the allegation is false.
If it's not, can you explain why you did what you did and why,
if what the WW writes is true, you should still be trusted?
Pete Colt
Posted by: KCleland | Oct 31, 2009 8:09:56 PM
Maria,
Interested in your comment: 5. Not realizing that green jobs destroy real jobs by 2:1 . More information Please?
Posted by: Greg D. | Oct 31, 2009 8:34:17 PM
I was taught that in business and in politics it pays to choose your battles wisely. In my opinion, direct or indirect defense of Sam Adams is a bad choice of battles. I can't understand why anyone in the progressive / Dem / liberal movement would consider Adams as anything other than an embarrassing freak show. Time to move on.
Posted by: Hang 'Em By The Balls | Oct 31, 2009 10:29:05 PM
M, I wouldn't worry about the 2:1 ratio. If climate deniers screw the pooch, they're going to be lynched at better than 2:1 compared to those that are sacrificing.
Posted by: SwamiSam | Oct 31, 2009 11:21:36 PM
Carla:
You think this column is an example of a GOOD Oregonian piece? Really?
Griffin's premise is basically: "I might vote for the recall, but only if I know the motives and opinions of the people who are putting it on the ballot."
Why would that matter? Why would their motives and opinions have any bearing at all on how Anna Griffin judges Sam Adam's behavior?
Most adults can easily make an ethical judgement from known facts. Apparently our "journalist" Anna Griffin just can't make such judgements at all until she knows all about what Peter Stott and Tim Boyle thinks about Sam's trangressions.
And you think this adds important stuff to the conversation. OK then.
Posted by: Avenge Terri Shiavo's Murder | Oct 31, 2009 11:28:33 PM
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 31, 2009 12:55:06 PM
Hmmmm, why not allow recall 2.0 die the slow death that it deserves?
Frustration tolerance isn't exactly a BO virtue.
Posted by: Eric the Editor | Nov 1, 2009 11:39:52 AM
Speaking of breaking news...WTFx3 1/2!?!
JohnCleese @ twitter
28 minutes ago
Portland is lovely and sunny, with bright blue skies, and warm breezes. Oh no, that's Santa Barbara. It's grey and cold here, ah, well...
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 1, 2009 3:53:45 PM
Griffin's premise is basically: "I might vote for the recall, but only if I know the motives and opinions of the people who are putting it on the ballot."
Why would that matter? Why would their motives and opinions have any bearing at all on how Anna Griffin judges Sam Adam's behavior?
Motives matter in politics.
Poli-Sci 101.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 1, 2009 5:13:37 PM
That wouldn't be the same Anna Griffin who wrote a long love letter to Merritt Paulson on the front page of the O the other day would it? My question is, what are Anna Griffin's motives?
And if a recall isn't intended as a way to remove someone from office for something you no longer trust to properly execute the duties of their office -- if, as you say, everyone should just wait three years for an election -- what is the purpose of having a recall procedure, pray tell?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 1, 2009 6:19:28 PM
And if a recall isn't intended as a way to remove someone from office for something you no longer trust to properly execute the duties of their office -- if, as you say, everyone should just wait three years for an election -- what is the purpose of having a recall procedure, pray tell?
At the risk of repeating myself (AGAIN), a recall should be for office holders who have ethical or criminal misconduct while in office.
Posted by: rw | Nov 1, 2009 7:59:25 PM
Eric - and my son is meeting Philip Glass tomorrow night. Maybe we can get a deadening, non-cascade of minimalist music just for us'n. What's Cleese doing here? And why has he not been taken someplace where the mist is scraping romantically thru the whirling burn of autumn leaves? The Advance Man is NOT doing his or her job viz conducting the Python thru the mysteries and glamour of Oregon.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 2, 2009 1:09:15 AM
a recall should be for office holders who have ethical or criminal misconduct while in office.
How does that standard preclude those people who feel that Adams lied (i.e. committed ethical misconduct) while he was holding office as a city councilman and running for the mayor's office from thinking that he should be recalled?
The whole "criminal misconduct" angle is a diversion. Someone who actually gets convicted of a serious crime and goes to jail isn't going to be in any position to be conducting city business.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 2, 2009 7:54:48 AM
How does that standard preclude those people who feel that Adams lied (i.e. committed ethical misconduct) while he was holding office as a city councilman and running for the mayor's office from thinking that he should be recalled?
You can think whatever you like, Darrel. Some people think that Adams should be recalled because they don't like his policies, too. IMO, the threshold for a recall is for misconduct while in office. I don't think lying about sex qualifies for that. If he lied about a policy thing or some other city business, then that's entirely different, and that would qualify him, IMO, for a recall.
The whole "criminal misconduct" angle is a diversion. Someone who actually gets convicted of a serious crime and goes to jail isn't going to be in any position to be conducting city business.
Exactly. And if they're not in a position to properly conduct city business, that's an appropriate and proper reason for a recall.
Other than that, vote him out next cycle. In my view, a recall is inappropriate and an abuse under other circumstances.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 2, 2009 9:22:40 AM
Some people think that Adams should be recalled because they don't like his policies, too.
So far as I'm aware -- apart from your "opinion" and your "view" -- there's nothing that says that isn't grounds for a recall.
Even you say above that a recall should be reserved for "poor conduct while in office." Adams was in office while he was lying to the people of Portland, first as a member of the city council, then as mayor. That's pretty poor conduct. Why should citizens have to wait through another three years of having someone as a mayor who's got a proven track record of lying to them about something personally embarrassing but relatively inconsequential? Or do we just wait to see if he does some real damage?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 2, 2009 11:04:23 AM
So far as I'm aware -- apart from your "opinion" and your "view" -- there's nothing that says that isn't grounds for a recall.
Since this entire piece is about opinion (Griffith's--and my comments are my opinion), I'm not sure why you feel its compelling to separate that out, but okay. There is no legal threshold at all to recall an office holder, that I'm aware of. You can file a recall for whatever frivolous reasons you like, Darrel.
Adams was in office while he was lying to the people of Portland, first as a member of the city council, then as mayor. That's pretty poor conduct.
He was lying about his personal sexual life that hasn't risen to any criminal charges. That's not misconduct in office, Darrel. That's his personal life.
Why should citizens have to wait through another three years of having someone as a mayor who's got a proven track record of lying to them about something personally embarrassing but relatively inconsequential? Or do we just wait to see if he does some real damage?
You take the chance when you elect anyone that they might do damage. It's part of the deal. If he is damaging in an unethical or criminal way..a recall is warranted. If he does things policy-wise that you find damaging, that's when you vote him out.
This really isn't that difficult a concept, no matter how you attempt to parse it.
Posted by: Michael B | Nov 2, 2009 11:06:33 AM
Marie
You may not realize it, sweetheart, but your list of "offenses" is also a list of the priorities of Portland's electorate. So, your post is actually elucidates why Portland loves Mayor Adams despite his sexual indiscretions.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 2, 2009 5:02:03 PM
"Portland loves Mayor Adams despite his sexual indiscretions."
Wow, I didn't now that.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 2, 2009 5:26:53 PM
Interesting. The mayor's office not only can, but actually did remove someone for alleged sexual misconduct, who was eventually exonerated of any ethical misconduct or criminal wrong-doing. One Derek Derrick Foxworth then the chief of police.
Interesting how we as progressives are expected to give someone a pass when it is the mayor is now the one who skated up to, and past, the ethical line of sexual misconduct and lying about it, to remain the one who can fire the chief of police for doing far, far less.
So we as progressives are ok with the removal as chief of police, a man who was fully exonerated. But we need to leave a man who has not been exonerated in place because...?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 2, 2009 5:30:15 PM
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 2, 2009 11:04:23 AM He was lying about his personal sexual life that hasn't risen to any criminal charges. That's not misconduct in office, Darrel. That's his personal life.
So did you vigorously defend Derrick Foxworth back when the mayor removed him as chief of police despite his being fully exonerated, and who DIDN'T lie about his personal life?
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Nov 2, 2009 7:50:08 PM
Can anyone recall when a assertive, articulate, powerful black person.... especially a male black person has ever been treated equally as a white person in Portland? I am not crying about the situation, as I have faith in the city of Portland that change is in progress and I will live long enough to witness it. However, what I am concerned with is how many progressives that voted for President Obama that defend Sam Adams, but where silent Chief Foxworth needed them. To me their commitment to Sam Adams lessens the value of their vote for President Obama and calls question their thirst for change. Top on this list is Sam Adams. Sam did nothing to defend Foxworth's right to privacy. Blacks, Gays and Bisexuals are among the most oppressed people in America and Sam Adams understood this better than anyone on City Council at the time. He did not do what all of you would have done had you been in his position at the time Foxworth was relieved of his duties as Chief of Portland Police.
When I first heard of Balls allegations. I defended Sam Adams and I stood by his right to personal privacy. I did so because like most of you I felt Sam was being truthful and I felt the attack on his personal life was an attack on my rights as well as his. At that time Sam was worth fighting for because our rights were worth defending. I was wrong, because Sam Adams deceived me and everyone else. He lied to us all and for that reason mostly he does not deserve to be the Mayor of our great city.
Sam Adams has proven he does not hold the same commitment to truth, honesty and equality as what I hope most of the progressives I know have struggled for. We all have to step back and look at Same Adams and decided before anything else,. Has his conduct reflected what we want to project in this city and beyond?
We need to remove Sam Adams from office not just because he disappointed us, but because he has shown himself to be the beast we all have struggled to slay. We have committed to much, sacrificed to long and dreamed to big to allow Sam Adams to encumber the gains we have made. Sam Adams needs to go and if he loves Portland as much as he says he does, then he would step down voluntarily. With out that gift from him we need to commit to removing him from office.
Posted by: tibia money | Nov 3, 2009 12:56:15 AM
For this matter, once I discussed with one of my friends, not only about the content you talked about, but also to how to improve and develop, but no results. So I am deeply moved by what you said today.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 8:18:53 AM
So did you vigorously defend Derrick Foxworth back when the mayor removed him as chief of police despite his being fully exonerated, and who DIDN'T lie about his personal life?
The problem with Foxworth wasn't that he had sex and lied about it, as I understand it. The problem was that he was having sex with someone under his command and then threatened to fire her if she revealed the affair. That's unethical behavior in office and a firing offense, IMO.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Nov 3, 2009 9:01:55 AM
Carla,
Just like Sam Adams, Foxworth was investigated and the report was pretty clear. Derrirks Foxworth's relationship was about as unethicals as Chief Sizers relationship with former Assistant Portland Police Chiefs Dan Nole before her Marriage to him. It was proper and none of the citys business and above all else, it was not unethical. Furthermore, Derrick Foxworth was honest and cooperated fully and professionally with investigators. he did not like to the investigators and he did not lie to the people of Portland and he did not encourage others to go after the people that accused him of wrong doing. He just did not earn your respect and that of many other Sam Adam supporters.
So I ask you......Where were you when Derrick Foxworth needed you? What did you do when this black man was having his right to privacy encumbered? Do you feel Derrick Foxwrths right to privacy was and is as important as Sam Adams? Do you feel his conduct was better or worse than Sam Adams?
What does a black person have to do to be considered equal in your eyes? It is obvious that Derrick Foxworth has not met that bar for you and others.
Have not lost faith in you Carla, but I am disappointed.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Nov 3, 2009 9:04:03 AM
sorry for the re-post, but I have to make one important typo correction....please forgive.
Carla,
Just like Sam Adams, Foxworth was investigated and the report was pretty clear. Derrirks Foxworth's relationship was about as unethicals as Chief Sizers relationship with former Assistant Portland Police Chiefs Dan Nole before her Marriage to him. It was proper and none of the citys business and above all else, it was not unethical. Furthermore, Derrick Foxworth was honest and cooperated fully and professionally with investigators. he did not LIE to the investigators and he did not lie to the people of Portland and he did not encourage others to go after the people that accused him of wrong doing. He just did not earn your respect and that of many other Sam Adam supporters.
So I ask you......Where were you when Derrick Foxworth needed you? What did you do when this black man was having his right to privacy encumbered? Do you feel Derrick Foxwrths right to privacy was and is as important as Sam Adams? Do you feel his conduct was better or worse than Sam Adams?
What does a black person have to do to be considered equal in your eyes? It is obvious that Derrick Foxworth has not met that bar for you and others.
Have not lost faith in you Carla, but I am disappointed.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 9:54:20 AM
Fred:
Did Foxworth threaten to fire the underling if she exposed their affair or did he not?
To me, that's the lynchpin. If he didn't, then there isn't an ethical problem. But if he did, in my view, it is. That was my understanding of the situation. If I'm wrong, then frankly I dropped the ball.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Nov 3, 2009 10:25:01 AM
Carla
You are wrong and I appreciate to see you admit you dropped the ball. It is actually what I expected of you Carla, as I do feel you are a person I can depend on if and when my rights as a human being are ever challenged. I hope you know that I will be there for you if and when you ever needed me.in the same regard. We both like many others that visit Blue Oregon take personal freedom seriously.
Understand a couple things in regards to my position. I do not feel the city of Portland owes Foxworth an apology and through I disagree with Mayor Potters decision to demote Foxworth, I respect it. My problem is simply that Foxworth lived up to Portland by being honest and truthful in all regards and Sam Adams has not. I also assert that Sams conduct though it may have been legal was unethical and his refusal to stand by Derrick Foxworth proves in light of more recent developments that he does not value Truth and Equality the way you or I do and most certainly at the levels most of the people that defend him do.
Derrick got something few black men in his position ever live to see. Their character affirmed as worthy of our trust. However, that did not mean he should not have been demoted. To not hold Sam Adams to the same values we held Foxworth to is wrong and it clouds every other progressive position in regards to equality for all minorities.
Change is delayed for black people in Portland every day that Sam Adams is in office.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 10:58:31 AM
You are wrong and I appreciate to see you admit you dropped the ball.
Fred: I don't think I'm wrong about Foxworth on this one. In fact, I believe the HR department told him to leave Oswalt alone and he wouldn't..which was also part of the problem.
Griffin is right here. There are a lot of high-level folks that want to see Adams out--but won't step up and allow themselves to be scrutinized and interviewed. Their motives matter.
Posted by: Michael B | Nov 3, 2009 11:27:58 AM
Fred Stewart
Foxworth was accused of abusing his power for personal gain by threatening to fire an employee if she revealed his secrets. Foxworth was removed for abuse of power, not for the sexual indiscretions. If the Foxworth thing was just about sexual indiscretion, I would completely agree with you, but we are talking about abuse of power and that is totally different.
Adams never abused his power. He lied about his sex life and that is it. The two situations are completely different. This is not about race.
I would be surprised to find out race ever played much of a role in removing officials from office. Look at how in New York, Governor Patterson has weathered revelations about his philandering, immediately after succeeding Gov. Spitzer who was forced out because of philandering. Yes, Spitzer used prostitutes and Patterson didn't.. but seriously, I just don't see race as a factor in these things.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Nov 3, 2009 11:48:15 AM
Carla,
I will have to revisit the report but if my memory serves me right, the investigation found that Foxworth did not do anything personally that caused Ms Oswalt any difficuties and she never said Foxworth personally encumbered her right to the quiet enjoyment of her position with the Police department. Her assertions were more grounded in what others did or what she felt they did after learning of her relationship with Foxworth. a relationship she was more open with co-workers than Foxworth . They also found there was enough distance between her position and Foxworths that the fact they both worked for the Portland Police department did not violate any of the City's policies. Bottom line, HR stood behind Foxworth in the end. (After the investigation)
They might have asked him to end his relationship as a precaution....risk management if you will. However, that could not be compared to a 42 year old man grooming a 17 year old for a relationship once said 17 year old turned 18. As if a City Commissioner should even have an intimate relationship while in office with a person of that age in the first place. I am sure the city of Portlands Risk Management folks would have said something to Sam Adams had he been honest with them about the nature of his relationship with Breedlove.
What the HR department and the citizens of Portland benefited from. Was the conduct and the character of Derrick Foxworth. He accepted the process, truthfully and professionally participated in the process. Because of that people like me that disagreed with the outcome can respect the process and the people that were involved.
Anna Griffths has a point and I do not entirerly disagree with her. The problem is not with the high level people not stepping up to the plate. The problem is with Anna, you and many other progressives that I think understand what is actually at stake here but not demanding that Sam Adams step down. On the contrary you are defending him. In my opinion he does not deserve or warrant your respect or time if ethics and the ethics of equality are of value to you.
The scary thing for me as a black man is that people like you and Anna and many others can drop this ball in the first place. Good thing I am bold and bodacious and comfortable in my own skin. I might develop a real concern for my safety and the safety of other minorities.....Just joking. I still have a lot of faith in Portland, Anna and you.
Posted by: Silvio Berlusconi | Nov 3, 2009 12:05:10 PM
So we as progressives are ok with the removal as chief of police, a man who was fully exonerated. But we need to leave a man who has not been exonerated in place because...?
All investigation should be suspended while the office holder serves!
Every politician is a lying cheat. You want a good man to do combat with them? Anyone that votes and then objects, "but he lies" should lose their right to vote. You like it that way. There is no greater inducement to lie than knowing that one vote can win the day. If you wanted messy reality, you'd have parliamentary democracy. Americans are too simple for that. You vote black and white, and the best way to get what you want, given that, is to lie. Ask anyone Gen X!
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Nov 3, 2009 12:10:52 PM
Michael B,
Can you reference the area...paragraph in the report that assert that Derrick did anything of the Sort? There were 9 areas the investigation touched on and Derrick only failed in one. It amounted to discussing company business with an unauthorized person and that was one of the factors mayor Tom Potter stated was at issue when he demoted Foxworth. The same Tom Potter that has urged Portland to re-call Adams.
If I am wrong, please set me straight with a little more than your opinion. It would help. I think if you google the report you should still be able to get the copy channel 8 or Willamette Week posted.
As for the abuse of Power. One would have to really be blind to the affects Sams letter had on the populous of Portland when he responded to Balls assertions of the relationship. Sam Adams was a siting City Commissioner at the time and his influence with said popullus was considerable. The letter, the lie in the letter and the lies on the web site, press releases and the ones told in public and private meetings are all collectivly and individually an abuse of power. This is just the stuff we know about, god knows hat Sam did that we do not know about. We can only go on the public conduct to make any judgments from there.
Lastly I could care less about any other city other than Portland. Bad things happen all over the world and you and I have little ability to change that. What we do have is the opportunity to make sure the right things are done here and now and that is what I hope you and others along with me will do. Maybe we can be an example those other places can look up to one day. That would be a bonus.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2009 12:26:02 PM
Posted by: Michael B | Nov 3, 2009 11:27:58 AM...
Foxworth was removed for abuse of power, not for the sexual indiscretions.
Wrong. The investigation focused on eight potential issues, most notably sexual harassment, abuse of power, and misuse of city resources. The investigation concluded there was no evidence of sexual harassment, abuse of power, or misuse of city property or time. Foxworth was fully exonerated on those issues. So to say he was removed for abuse of power is simply not accurate.
Furthermore, the mayor stated that the rationale for Foxworth being removed from office was that in order to be an effective leader, the police chief must be held to a high standard and maintain a level of trust within the department and within the community. Potter determined that Foxworth was no longer able to be an effective leader because he did not have the trust of the community because of the of the responses to the allegations within the community.
So the questions are, do we as a community expect the Mayor to be held to the same level of trust and ethical behavior that Foxworth was, or not?
Do we have the same standards for the chief of police than we do his boss, the mayor?
If not, what rationale is that does doesn't smack of a double standard?
And if we do expect to hold our higher level-leadership within the city government to the same standards at that level of leadership in Government, who can 'demote' the Mayor if not the people through a 'recall'...?
As Fred posted up-thread. That isn't to say that Foxworth, and the rationale for which the mayor removed him as chief of police were not a flawed decision. It certainly is within the prerogative of the office of the mayor to remove the chief of police. But I suggest that we as progressives ought to hold fast to equal treatment when it comes to what set of standards for the conduct of those holding such levels of public trust, be they a minority or not.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2009 12:32:01 PM
ugh, that should read:
If not, what rationale is there that does not smack of being a double standard?
Mea culpa.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 12:41:31 PM
So the questions are, do we as a community expect the Mayor to be held to the same level of trust and ethical behavior that Foxworth was, or not?
Yes. Foxworth was found by the investigation to have engaged in unprofessional conduct that was a bi-product of the sexual misconduct charges. He wasn't fired outright, however. He retired/resigned.
So in effect, he wouldn't be recalled either.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 12:43:35 PM
Additionally, the point that those who've come forward to recall Adams aren't available for interviews to discuss motive is essentially going unaddressed.
Certainly in the case of Foxworth, his accuser was thoroughly questioned. In the case of Adams, not so much.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2009 12:52:43 PM
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 12:41:31 PMYes. Foxworth was found by the investigation to have engaged in unprofessional conduct that was a bi-product of the sexual misconduct charges.
Oh? Chapter and verse as the saying goes.
He wasn't fired outright, however. He retired/resigned.
He was removed as chief of police by the mayor Carla. After he was demoted he then resigned from the police force. If you know of a method to remove Sam Adams as mayor, but have him still retain a lower level position city government after his demotion, let us know what that mechanism might be.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 1:11:22 PM
He was removed as chief of police by the mayor Carla. After he was demoted he then resigned from the police force. If you know of a method to remove Sam Adams as mayor, but have him still retain a lower level position city government after his demotion, let us know what that mechanism might be.
So he wasn't fired outright, correct? And he was found to have specifically violated one of the police conduct codes, correct..?
Adams hasn't been found to have violated any city code, law or ethical code of conduct in his job as mayor. Foxworth was found to have violated a code in his job as Chief. And he still got to have a job after it was over.
If you want to hold Adams to the same standard..then fine, hold him to it. Get an investigator to find him in violation of a city code, law or official standard that he's violated as mayor.
In hindsight, I should have recognized this for the apples to oranges comparison that it is. Adams is an elected official, Foxworth is a regular city employee. Foxworth's violation happened while he was in the job, Adams didn't.
It's not really a good comparison.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Nov 3, 2009 1:21:12 PM
Carla,
If your opinion of the findings of the Foxworth investigation, then you must feel Derrick Foxworth is a complete fool. Furthermore you must have a very low opinion of the research of the writer of this article performed before the article was written and posted in the Portland Tribune.
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116058986015233800
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 3, 2009 1:25:59 PM
Fred:
I don't know Foxworth so I don't know if he's a fool. I know what the investigation said. I'm also now convinced based on this comment thread that comparing the Adams and Foxworth situation is inappropriate. They're apples and oranges.
Now...how about those people leading the recall of Adams, what's their motive? Why don't they come forward and speak with reporters about why they're doing this?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 31, 2009 12:55:06 PM
Hmmmm, why not allow recall 2.0 die the slow death that it deserves? Adams lied during his election campaign about a sexual affair. The majority of folks appear to have gotten over their angst (if they ever had any) and have moved on. allow Adams to complete the remainder of his tenure as mayor and then have Tonkin, Boyle, Stott, et. al. have their go at the office then. Adams is surely bound to be a one-termer.
Anna Griffin also wrote earlier on in this op-ed that lying about the sexual encounter during the campaign was a termination offense in her opinion.