Want to meet the candidates for Portland City Council?
Kari Chisholm
The Portland Mercury's Matt Davis reports that the motley crew of challengers to Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman have organized a meet-the-candidates night for Friday night.
The idea is that you'll be able to meet the candidates, hear them speak (reportedly, for only five minutes each!), and then offer your $5 to the candidate or candidates that you'd like to see qualify for public financing. (Reminder: Candidates that collect one thousand $5 contributions qualify for $150,000 public financing, and voluntarily forgo the opportunity to raise any other funds beyond that level.)
The event is at 6 p.m. on Friday (with speeches at 7) at Dough Nation, a new pizza spot on NE Alberta and 11th. According to WW's Ari Phillips, this is the first in a series.
The idea was conceived by stone mason and activist Spencer Burton. Other candidates involved include BlueOregon co-founder and politico Jesse Cornett, mental health advocate Jason Renaud, and former city spokesperson Mary Volm.
Commissioner Saltzman's been invited, but no word yet on whether he'll be there. (Saltzman won't be seeking public financing, however. In 2006, he voluntarily limited his fundraising to the $150,000 mark.)
Another candidate, psychotherapist Ed Garren, has been invited (and was present for the planning meeting), but posted an angry screed at the Mercury's BlogTown. He called his fellow candidates a "bunch of clowns, who have REALLY pissed me off!!" and suggested that the meet-the-candidates concept was a "scheme which would attempt to conspire to get $750,000 out of the city."
Sure, Ed. Can't have candidates talking to voters or anything like that. That would screw up that whole "democracy" thing we have going on.
The press release from the four candidates is posted over at the Portland Sentinel.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:32 a.m.
Jan 6, '10
Full disclosure: My firm is hosting Jesse Cornett's campaign website. I speak only for myself.
4:14 a.m.
Jan 6, '10
This is a novel approach indeed: all we've done is self organize our first joint public appearance. I'm a skeptic of taking part in a series, but will play a wait and see approach.
Jan 6, '10
Although I like the idea of public campaign financing it is highly unlikely that any challenger can take out an incumbent on the city council in an even money race. The incumbent has a tremendous edge in name recognition. Plus, Saltzman's a survivor. He was re-elected despite going against the popular grain on the JTTF and the reservoir covering debacle. I don't think his caving in to the police union will hurt him bad enough for any of these challengers to win.
8:08 a.m.
Jan 6, '10
Also, look at Garren's time stamp. Just after midnight. Personally I have a rule never to blog after 7pm. Something about the full moon...will get in touch with him today.
8:51 a.m.
Jan 6, '10
When the city decided to adopt the public financing scheme, the intention was simple: to open public office to a wider and more diverse group beyond the usual political class. The critics were rabid at the start, and the early debacle with fraud only fanned the flames. Yet here we are, three elections down the road, and a wide, diverse group of candidates is running for city council.
It seems like we ought to admit that while the implementation was rocky, the goals seem to be well accomplished.
Jan 6, '10
The sun is up, and nothing has changed. I'm also asking you to print the open letter I sent regarding this issue, which is also at the bottom of this post.
Yes I sent an "angry screed", I felt violated and betrayed. I had established a VERY clear boundary, but don't take my word, here's what Jason Renaud sent me this AM: "Sorry Ed. You were clear with the group about your need for an internal decision. I did ask you + Debra on Monday and you were still undecided. So I posted the picture of the foursome (not as good!) and no commentary."
Lastly Karl, I appreciate that you and Jesse are friends, and that he pays you for his ad on this.
While the public should have any and all opportunities to meet candidates, and they will later in the process, at this stage of the election process, the goal is for people to get their qualifying contributions by meeting voters individually, not conspiring to manipulate the process. I was at the meeting, and I know what was discussed and the tone of it.
I hope you will print my responses, not just your opinions about them.
Dear Spencer, Mary, Jason and Jesse:
I came last Sunday to see what you had to say. While I appreciate your desire create a more "collegial" perspective among candidates, I think I made it VERY clear in the meeting that I was opposed to any scheme which would attempt to conspire to get $750,000 out of the city.
The entire reason for the Qualifying Contributions process is to see if there is genuine public support for an individual candidate to warrant PUBLIC MONEY being awarded to that individual candidate. It is NOT a scheme to just get money out of the city because a group of people are angry about an individual elected official, or a single issue.
I also made it very clear that I did NOT want the photo of me with the rest of you published until my campaign steering committee had considered and approved our participation in such a scheme. I asked your photographer to take a second set of photos of the four of you, with me not in them, and you did.
The Steering Committee of my campaign also agreed with me about this endeavor and felt equally uncomfortable with it.
Yet, before I could notify you of that decision, I get notice of my photo, with the rest of you, published in the Willamette Week (online http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/01/05/dan-saltzmans-challengers-have-a-novel-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-107014).
What this blatant disregard for my request confirms is that my instincts were correct, and I do not wish to be publicly associated with this group, this series of endeavors, or the reactionary impetus which appears to drive your endeavors.
I am running for City Commission because I believe the city needs change. While I share your concerns about many issues, I am not interested in any conspiracies to try to manipulate the Public Financing system.
I ask you to do a public disclaimer, and ask the Willamette Week (and any other media) to remove the photo with me in it.
Regards, Ed Garren
<hr/>www.EdForPDX.com [email protected]
Jan 6, '10
One thing in Ed's post caught my eye. How is it that Cornett is paying for an ad on here prior to obtaining his financing? I thought that was a violation of the public financing rules.
Can anyone help me out?
Jan 6, '10
Two factual points:
1) Regarding Robert's question - Limited spending is allowed during the qualifying phase using the proceeds of collecting the $5 qualifying contributions and seed money donations that are limited to $100. This reflects that there are valid expenses incurred during the qualifying process.
2) It is great that Commissioner Dan Saltzman voted for the reform program and, though he didn't opt in, self-limited his spending and the size of contributions. He did go slightly over the $150,000 spending limit but that 2006 race was still a financial fair fight indicating that the reform program addresses the financial advantage of incumbency.
Obviously there are other advantages of incumbency, but if folks are evaluating the reform program only by whether or not incumbents are defeated they may want to focus on term limits. Also keep in mind that an incumbent has a record that can be used against them. A final point is that the private money system replaced by VOE is far more helpful to incumbents than challengers.
Jan 6, '10
Robert Collins:
Plus, Saltzman's a survivor.
Bob T:
I'm hoping that many of the votes he received in previous elections will go elsewhere due to his support for giving tax dollars to multi-millionaire Paulson. That will send a real message. One would think that a city that overwhelmingly supports so-called progressive ideas would want to send such a message about sports corporate welfare. But sadly, they never miss a chance to support efforts to micro-manage economic activity to get credit, and more "city pride" projects that any real city must have.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jan 6, '10
So how much does his ad on this blog cost?
Jan 6, '10
Questions:
-What will you do about the "hit squad ?" mainly how will you ensure that due process begins to be followed in deciding what businesses to shutter -Will you continue the practice of infill (AKA cramming triplexes into single-family lots in SE) -Will you continue to encourage the growth of high-rises via tax breaks to developers all in the name of density (see sowhat and pearl district)? -Do you belive if it's "green" and "sustainable" that ends all debate? -Do you believe downtown has thrived or not in the past few years and if not what do you blame (other than the current recession) -Do you believe cutting trimetwile building street cars is the most cost-effective way for our public transit system? -Will you take your cues from Neil Goldschmidt and the gallatin group and developers or listen the people that elect you? -Do you beleive in giving people more choices about how to get places or do you actively wish to make driving a car more difficult? Do you believe the former leads to the latter?
Thanks
11:03 a.m.
Jan 6, '10
i appreciate it when a candidate solidifies my perspective on his or her qualifications through public actions. Ed has done exactly that. thanks for saving me time & energy, Ed.
11:38 a.m.
Jan 6, '10
So how much does his ad on this blog cost?
Robert--if you click on the purple box in the left-hand column that says "Oregon Progressives Ad Network", you'll see the cost of purchasing ads at Blue Oregon as well as a number of other local blogs.
12:02 p.m.
Jan 6, '10
@ Robert Collins, I read your comment as essentially saying there's no point in running against an incumbent, unless one has enormous financial resources. While I understand the statistics that would motivate you to take that position, I don't think your conclusion is something that any advocate of a democratic society should accept without regarding it as a problem in need of a solution.
In 2006, first-time candidate Amanda Fritz earned a respectable 25% of the vote to Dan Saltzman's 57%, in a field of seven candidates, and spending very little money. In 2008, when a seat opened up, she parlayed the name recognition and experience she earned into a victory.
I believe her success points in the general direction of a solution to the "incumbent is unassailable" problem. But she's only one candidate.
With smart and resourceful people like Jesse Cornett running for office and working with the public financing system, I suspect we will see other kinds of successes.
From my understanding of the design of the public finance system (note: I served on the Citizen Campaign Commission that oversees it for two years), this sort of event is very much the kind of thing originally envisioned: citizens are afforded an opportunity to engage directly with candidates early in the process, and make a judgment about who should be given a grant for campaign expenses to further articulate their message.
I will say that in my personal opinion, no citizen should be able to give a qualifying contribution to more than one candidate in a given race. However, the law as written does not prohibit that; and when we considered that sort of issue in public meetings, we heard no testimony from the public about it. That sort of change is easy to make; if anyone believes it's important, I would strongly recommend they seek out some consensus in the community around the idea, and then seek to influence the CCC in any future code revisions.
Anyway: glad to see there are some good candidates participating in the system, and looking forward to hearing how the event goes.
Jan 6, '10
Although I like the idea of public campaign financing it is highly unlikely that any challenger can take out an incumbent on the city council in an even money race.
That's normally true. The incumbent has a massive advantage in name recognition, free media, and the ability to pass laws and make policy. (Although it's true, as Janice Thompson points out, that they have a record to be used against them as well.)
The incumbency advantage could be blunted awarding challengers greater public funding than an incumbent -- say, $100,000 to an incumbent vs. $150,000 to a challenger, with an explicit statement that the extra $50,000 is intended to offset the advantages of incumbency.
I expect that still leaves the incumbent with a significant advantage; while he or she can't buy quite as much advertising, the challenger (in most cases) needs to do a lot more advertising just to get a reasonable degree of name recognition.
I don't know if lower funding for incumbents would satisfy an equal protection challenge -- but I think there's a clear rational basis for the distinction, and it would make races a bit more competitive, with the incumbent needing to defend against a better-financed challenger.
2:53 p.m.
Jan 6, '10
from Spencer Burton's campaign:
"Dear Willamette Week:
My desire is to bring all of the candidates together for the sake of inclusiveness. It is my heart felt wish to allow all of the candidates an opportunity to be heard in different parts of the city, side by side, offering their vision for Portland.
I had two offers made to me by two new businesses on NE Alberta and North Lombard to host a night for me, with music, to speak and gather signatures for public funding. After speaking with them I was inspired to call the other candidates up, to sit down with them over breakfast and discuss holding some joint appearances.
Mary Volm, Jason Renaud and Jesse Cornett have accepted my offer to get together on Jan 8, at 6pm at Dough Nations, located at 1027 NE Alberta. All candidates will be able to speak starting at 7pm, set up their table and gather signatures for public financing. A popular local band, the Chicharones, will be playing music. Ed Garren declined my offer to come. He voiced his concerns at breakfast at the Overlook Cafe on Sunday morning. It is his choise not to attend. Dan Saltzman has been invited but also declined our invitation. We have invited the press, the neighborhood associations, and the neighborhood with flyers inviting them to attend. Please come and participate.
The next joint candidate forum and signature gathering event will on be Jan 17th at 6pm at the North End Pub, located at 3011 North Lombard Street. Mirium's Well will provide the music. All Candidates are invited to come.
I believe in public funding. As a working man I couldn't run without it. I believe in having a diverse debate about the leadership and direction of Portland. I believe in bringing people together to solve our problems with our collective wisdom.
Spencer Burton Candidate for Portland City Council 503 803-2699 [email protected] spencerburtonforportland.com
Jan 6, '10
Pete Forsyth,
No argument from me on that. Amanda built her name in the first run and then was successful when she went after an open seat. I'm just saying they shouldn't be expecting to win.
As far as the public financing is concerned, I like it, but I think the bar is set too low at one thousand.
3:10 p.m.
Jan 6, '10
@Robert, as to setting the bar at 1,000 contributions, I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I certainly understand the cause for your concern.
Once again, this is precisely the sort of thing the CCC loves to hear from interested parties about. We considered recommending an increase to the threshold last year after interviewing a number of parties (participating and non-participating candidates, advocacy groups, etc. etc.) Those deliberations are always open to public comment, and while I can't speak with authority for the current commission, it is my strong belief that they would welcome the opportunity to hear any informed perspective.
Make your opinion count!
Jan 7, '10
Ed, I won't be voting for you. If you didn't want to be associated with this group, why did you stand in the picture? Who knows, but you did. Now you throw a "pissed" fit in public over it?
Your lack of awareness around basic public communication skills, coupled with your demonstrated willingness to blame others for your choices, convinces me you're not qualified for elected office.
1:06 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
I'd rather vote for "Ed" than "Sorry Ed." At least the real Ed has the courage to attach his name to his words!
Jan 7, '10
I'm not a candidate for public office. Ed is. There's a difference, Pete. He chose to become a public figure. My choice to remain anonymous is an assertion of my right to privacy. If you want to disregard my comment as a result, so be it.
It's troubling how ready so many progressives are to toss their right to privacy away.
3:31 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
Hey "Sorry" -- I don't begrudge you your privacy one iota. But I do consider your willingness to lob attacks on another individual from behind the veil of anonymity an indication of cowardice, and as you suggest, place little stock in your words.
Jan 7, '10
Dear Mark H:
Good questions, here's my answers:
-What will you do about the "hit squad ?" mainly how will you ensure that due process begins to be followed in deciding what businesses to shutter?
I wrote about the "HIT" Squad, and my issues with the lack of due process, and the loss of 50 jobs downtown. The comments I wrote are on my campaign site, www.EdForPDX.com "A Killing at 4th & Washington." Whenever due process is ignored, abuses flood in. Like other aspects of Law Enforcement in the city, this "HIT" Squad needs to be reigned in.
-Will you continue the practice of infill (AKA cramming triplexes into single-family lots in SE)
Two years ago I told stated that the city is trying to move poverty and problems to the east side, and that packing in density without suitable transportation and other services was not a good idea. I think the reality of density is not as desirable as the idea of it, and that needs to be revisited and reconsidered. This is one more example of "quick buck" development, short sighted, and destructive of neighborhoods.
-Will you continue to encourage the growth of high-rises via tax breaks to developers all in the name of density (see sowhat and pearl district)?
The city needs to revisit our development and construction codes for a number of reasons. One question, how much density do we want, and how many tax breaks can the city and county afford to give out to encourage a development paradigm that may need a rest for a while until the current high rises are closer to being full.
-Do you belive if it's "green" and "sustainable" that ends all debate?
No. Any decision weighs in with multiple factors. While it is imperative that we seriously move to a greener and more sustainable infrastructure and economy, no decision should be pushed by a single issue or agenda.
-Do you believe downtown has thrived or not in the past few years and if not what do you blame (other than the current recession)
Again, no absolute. Downtown was getting along, but the construction of the transit mall, which was completed just in time for the recession, has taken it's toll. Our downtown is one of our strongest assets, and enhancing it is always important, but enhancing our other shopping/business areas, is also important. We just need to attract more money into the region, which is the real issue to a thriving city.
-Do you believe cutting trimetwile building street cars is the most cost-effective way for our public transit system?
There is always a cost/benefit analysis for the decision to put in street car lines. I am a fan of electric busses, which offer the "clean" and quiet of street cars, but at a lower cost. We should be selling street cars to other municipalities as well as making them for ourselves. With "peak oil" looming, every mode of transportation needs to go electric. And cutting services to create capital is never a good idea. If a line is underutilized, then a smaller bus should be employed, not elimination of the line altogether.
-Will you take your cues from Neil Goldschmidt and the gallatin group and developers or listen the people that elect you?
I don't know Neil, or the Gallatins. As for developers, I have watched a lot of bad development ruin too many places (Florida and California). I'm not against development, but I don't think it's the automatic solution to all problems, and I don't think it should be used to displace poor people unless they are fairly compensated for that displacement.
-Do you beleive in giving people more choices about how to get places or do you actively wish to make driving a car more difficult? Do you believe the former leads to the latter?
I believe in choices, but the choices need to be complimentary. I love public transit, and the bus stop is 3/4 of a mile from my house (Jantzen Beach) and I have foot problems that make that walk a genuinely painful prospect. So I live the need for balance and choices. People have always had private personal transportation, horses and wagons before cars. The real trick is to change what the car runs on, which is why I'm very excited about electric cars and the possibility of powering them with solar and wind power.
I'm just not an ideologue and am skeptical of "one solution" responses to problems.
Also, if we're going to get off carbon and reduce CO2, we need to look at "passive" or "neutral" houses and buildings and really push that technology into now, via building code revision, as well as packaging renovations of existing housing and buildings with the new "passive house" technology. Our houses create almost half of the CO2 that is warming the planet. It's time to work on moving the housing advances we now have into the mainstream and make them reality now.
Hope that answers your questions, Ed Garren More on my web site: www.EdForPDX.com
<h2>Thanks</h2>