OLCV endorses Cogen, Collymore
Carla Axtman
After Tuesday's flurry of office filings in Multnomah County (and the looming voter's pamphlet deadline), the Oregon League of Conservation Voters held early endorsement interviews for the May Primary.
This morning, OLCV announced that they are endorsing Jeff Cogen for Multnomah County Chair and Karol Collymore for Multnomah County Commission Position #2. From the press release:
As a county commissioner, Cogen has focused on sustainability and the environment, leading a number of efforts to slow climate change, support the local food economy and preserve open spaces. He has introduced a program to grow food for hungry Oregon families and has represented Multnomah County in Metro’s regional reserves process."Jeff understands how clean energy and innovation can create good jobs and a stronger, more fair economy,’ said OLCV PAC Board Chair Charlie Burr. “Jeff is a proven leader and environmental champion.”
OLCV’s endorsement of Collymore is considered an early endorsement in the race for Multnomah County Commission, Position 2. An early endorsement leaves open the possibility of subsequent endorsements in the same race.
“Karol’s work to promote park spaces in neighborhoods and her focus on cleaner air and local food—especially for our kids—earned her the early endorsement,” said Burr. “Karol’s experience and knowledge of the county will make her an effective voice for healthy communities.
While working for the county, Collymore has led efforts to turn vacant county land into urban gardens, championed a cell phone recycling program, worked to locate a new farmers market in the community of St. Johns, and supported efforts on the Climate Action Plan.
OLCV's other endorsements for the May primary can be found here.
Discuss.
 |
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
10:07 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
the entire process of "liberal" organizations endorsing candidates has become a joke. not sure how OLCV blew their way thru 10 candidates in D2 (nothing against Karol here, who probably does deserve an endorsement). with Voter Pamphlets due today, that's 9 people who don't get an endorsement to list -- is Chuck Currie's record that bad? did they even talk to Enrique Arias?
in HD37, they endorsed a candidate who has only lived for a short time in the district; Gerritt Rosenthal (i'm doing his website) has lived there nearly 20 years, is an environmental & land use consultant & advocate, has testified many times before Metro & county boards & committees on these issues, is an active member of Onward Oregon in advocating for strong protections (water issues, marine preserves, strong rural reserves) -- and yet he's not someone OLCV can endorse?
OLCV is also tremendously impressed with Dan Saltzman's environmental record, which is understandable given his stellar leadership in that area.
what most of these amount to is the organizations deciding, who do we think has a good shot to get elected & then will help us? not, who has a proven track record & deserves a thumbs-up -- and we'll let the voters decide which, among several qualified candidates, they prefer. it's become utter crap, endorsements void of any real meaning in terms of the organizations' stated missions.
most county Democratic parties do it the right way: if you're a good Dem with a good record, either elected or private citizens, you get endorsed. fight the good fight with our blessing & let's see what the voters say.
OLCV, NARAL & others don't really seem to give a damn about that unfortunate "voters" part.
10:27 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Good comments TA, but why did NARAL have to take a hit? Given that a lot of the state NARAL orgs (especially Oregon NARAL) Broke with national in the last election over precisely this issue, it seems there's room for nuance here.
Oregon NARAL stuck with the candidate that they favored on the merits, while national behaved more as you described.
<hr/>Also, we know that Oregon Wild, the Sierra Club, and OLCV are often at odds, so I never look at any one of 'em as the final word on enviro opinion.......
11:03 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
it's the overall process, Pat: in a primary with multiple good candidates, you should just endorse them all. who is NARAL or OLCV to say that one Dem is better than another? their role is to vet on "their" issue - and if multiple candidates pass muster, so be it. "electability" ain't in the OLCV's mission; protecting the environment is. let the voters know who has a good environmental record & leave it at that. anything more than that is the kind of crap that drives cynicism.
a by-product of not endorsing is the implication that the candidate has a poor record on the environment. if i see a Dem i'm not familiar with not endorsed by a traditional ally, i wonder what the problem with that person is. is Chuck Currie or Jesse Cornett bad on the environment? endorsements based on electability, esp at this early stage, is just wrong (unless the person is a total assclown, in which case their record on the issue is likely to be assclowny, too).
this is over-stepping and it's anti-democratic.
Mar 11, '10
I call bullshit on the OLCV endorsement press release.
Read it here.
They claim this:
OLCV then scrambled to contact and interview candidates in order to make endorsement decisions before today’s Voters’ Pamphlet deadline.
They also claim this:
About the OLCV endorsement process: Any candidate seeking an OLCV endorsement must first fill out a comprehensive questionnaire covering a variety of relevant environmental issues. Following review of the questionnaire, OLCV volunteer committees conduct face-to-face interviews with each candidate and consider each candidate’s environmental record and their level of commitment to protecting Oregon’s environmental legacy, as well as their leadership skills. All endorsement recommendations from the endorsement committees are then reviewed and finalized by the OLCV PAC Board of Directors. OLCV endorsements run through the general election.
How could OLCV have done that with ten candidates for Position 2 in one day (i.e. between Tuesday filing deadline and Wednesday night)?
I think Karol was friends with a few people, and there were probably at least one and maybe a handful of rushed interviews, but it really holds no water as a thoughtful recommendation. Not that she'll be bad, she'll probably be fine.
But at least be honest about the process. Say it up front that she's someone you're close to and the normal process couldn't be followed. People would understand.
As a side note, OLCV's excuse is that they're -so- eager to rush because they want to be in the Voters' Pamphlet statement, but they aren't endorsing in the Governor's race until after the deadline. Earth to OLCV: the Governor has a lot more power than Multnomah Position 2.
11:59 a.m.
Mar 11, '10
Both Jeff and Karol clearly earned these endorsements because of their records working on behalf of environmental issues. Karol served on OLCV's board prior to jumping into this race. Jeff is widely viewed as one of the most committed, talented environmental advocates in the state.
TA, Chuck Currie was sent a questionnaire and scheduled for an interview, but had a subsequent scheduling conflict and had to cancel. In a highly compressed time schedule, I can understand that, so I don't mention it in any way as a slight against him. I like and respect Chuck a lot; it's not about his record being "bad" as you probably know.
The time frame made this process difficult, but OLCV gave early endorsements to candidates who were proven leaders on environmental issues. In the district 2 race, there will be time to potentially do a dual endorsement. No idea if the county chapter will go that direction or not, but OLCV will be further reaching out to candidates who were not given the “green light” of an early endorsement.
Also, viability is something OLCV looks at, but it's not the only thing. OLCV also tries to shy away from dual endorsements to not dilute their impact.
TA, you're on the Dem county steering committee; you guys have to make tough calls between multiple good candidates too. As with the replacement of Margaret Carter and Chip Shields' seats, there's one only position open at a time.
OLCV has a volunteer-led committee of local enviros within our county chapter. They write questionnaires, review responses, interview and then make a recommendation. Our state PAC (also volunteer-driven) then votes for candidates in each race. I think that's a pretty democratic process and most importantly, it's the most effective way of electing pro-environmental candidates.
Mar 11, '10
Isn't comparing wonky writings with actual decisions made in office more than a bit comparing apples and oranges? Has the OLCV bothered to collect any data showing their ratings have any validity? Specifically, can they show that they don't have a record of giving significantly higher ratings to people with no public record, over incumbents? If so, they ratings only tell you that people backpedal in office. News, that. Ultimately I read all these endorsements as "OLCV Endorses Itself as a Kingmaker". Nothing personal towards OLCV. I take a jaundiced view of any non-profit with full time, paid staff positions.
On a humorous note, from across the room cooking, I could have sworn this article was entitled, "OLCC Endorses Cogen, Collymore". I'd love to hear Karol put together a thank-you for the OLCC endorsement.
Mar 11, '10
To be clear--and I'm not even sure how we were brought into this conversation, T.A.--NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon does not endorse candidates for local races. Instead, we offer a green light to certify that candidates at the local level are pro-choice. Thus far, we have given a green light to Karol Collymore, as well as Chuck Currie, Gary Hansen, Jesse Cornett, Jeff Cogen, Nick Fish, Dan Saltzman, and Mary Volm. We are in the process of reviewing questionnaires for several others.
As with OLCV, all candidates are required by NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon to undergo a questionnaire and review process before receiving a green light. Given the last minute filings on Tuesday, we are also scrambling to provide candidates with questionnaires and then complete our review in time for this evening's deadline.
I would also say that who receives a green light rating in these last hectic hours is more a function of who is able to complete the questionnaire and return it in time for it to be reviewed by committee, NOT a function of who has friends where.
Laura Taylor Deputy Director NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon
Mar 11, '10
Why wasn't what was admitted above in the OLCV press release, instead of the lie?
The time frame made this process difficult, but OLCV gave early endorsements to candidates who were proven leaders on environmental issues. In the district 2 race, there will be time to potentially do a dual endorsement. No idea if the county chapter will go that direction or not, but OLCV will be further reaching out to candidates who were not given the “green light” of an early endorsement.
Translation: given the time constraints, we were unable to follow our normal process. We trust those we endorsed will do well, given their records.
Plus more cynical: Instead of giving everyone equal footing, we decided to endorse our friends in time for the voters' pamphlet, because we think it's so critical. But hey! We're fair! We'll interview the rest of them later, when it's too late for that critical voters' pamphlet.
Mar 11, '10
I agree the early endorsement from OLCV in this race is a bit ridiculous. I think it undermines the value of their endorsement if they don't really properly vet the candidates. How do they know that Karol is the only one in the district 2 race with a good environmental record. I understand Cogen because he has an actual voting record, but this sounds like a bunch of buddies made the decision.
Mar 11, '10
Regardless of the OLCV endorsement, and regardless of how much value that may have, I would not support Karol Collymore's candidacy, based on this quote from her from the 1/20/10 Willamette Week:
"I think Democrats who are wishy-washy with him (Obama) are being disloyal Democrats."
So, in other words, Karol Collymore must think DeFazio is a disloyal Democrat, as DeFazio criticizes Obama/Emanuel/Summers/Geithner all the time. And, funny thing, but DeFazio is the one who is actually a capital-D Democrat, as we knew and loved them up until the mid-70s.
In other words, I suspect Karol Collymore ia yet another party hack.
Mar 11, '10
What's upsetting about this is that it is just another example of how our elected officials are still chosen by a small group of insiders in metaphorical smoke-filled back rooms, made obvious yet again by the filing-day fallout. Not to make any comment whatsoever about the merits of Karol or Jeff, but this endorsement is just as transparent as the Emperor's new clothes. Not surprising given who's at the helm, but nevertheless disappointing.
2:49 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
What's upsetting about this is that it is just another example of how our elected officials are still chosen by a small group of insiders in metaphorical smoke-filled back rooms, made obvious yet again by the filing-day fallout. Not to make any comment whatsoever about the merits of Karol or Jeff, but this endorsement is just as transparent as the Emperor's new clothes. Not surprising given who's at the helm, but nevertheless disappointing.
I'm guessing the "who's at the helm" is an anonymous swipe at Jon Isaacs. Rather cowardly, if this is the case.
The way I understand this works, Isaacs doesn't choose who OLCV endorses. That is up to the OLCV Board. There's at least one race where I wish OLCV would have endorsed differently, but that's their call.
All this grousing about it, especially from commenters who can't be bothered to use their name--feels awfully shallow.
Mar 11, '10
I'm not sure whether I'm more disappointed about: - the nepotism (she's on our board! she's gotta be good!) - the deception (press release: our process is X! well, really, we don't follow that), or - the incompetence (governor candidates have been known for months - no decision! county candidates have been known for a day! pick our friend - we don't have time to research!)
Sad thing is it might be the right endorsement, and the process and communication mess-ups muddy the water.
3:11 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
Okay, I'm going to jump in here.
First, let's leave NARAL out of this. If you are good on their issues, they give you the green light. Yay!
Back to OLCV. In 2006 when I ran for the State Senate, I was given the opportunity to compete for their endorsement and ultimately received it. This year, I also competed but wasn't selected.
What I found was a dedicated group of citizen activists that care enough to spend a ton of time listening to would be elected officials and ask the tough questions too few are willing to ask.
While I wish OLCV did it a little bit more like NARAL actually, where all candidates will the right beliefs are given a thumbs up. At the end of the day, I'm disinclined to suggest to the groups of dedicated activists that they do anything other than what they choose to do and my sincere thanks to the Multnomah County Steering Committee for all their hard work.
3:38 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
I'm frankly stunned by some of the comments and hostility. Reducing an important organization and its steering committee to a cartoon smacks of intolerance.
3:39 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
Charlie, i'm not on any steering committee. not sure what you're thinking of.
NARAL, sorry to lump you in here. i misunderstood what i was told; i apologize.
4:04 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
Reducing an important organization and its steering committee to a cartoon smacks of intolerance.
True enough Paulie, but Jon has known for a long time that no good deed goes unpunished and I suspect that he and OLCV will continue to be the major eviro voice among Oregon politicians regardless of the opinions of all of us fearless Blue Oregon commenters.
Mar 11, '10
I'm on the OLCV PAC board and Charlie basically puts it very well, but let me add one point.
Yes, the candidates for governor have been known for months. This is obviously a really important race, and we are going through a thorough process for the OLCV endorsement, including questionnaires, interviews and the March 30 environmental debate we are co-sponsoring with the Sierra Club, Environment Oregon and the Oregon Environmental Council.
http://www.olcv.org/resources/news/attend-gubernatorial-environmental-debate-march-30
Mar 11, '10
The way I understand this works, Isaacs doesn't choose who OLCV endorses.
Of course, the way you understand it is probably based on what OLCV tells you, which may or may not be the truth.
And Isaacs does, however, control the press release that out-and-out lies about the process that OLCV followed. That's the rub, here - the questionable process and the lies about it.
The rub isn't the general process for candidates (Jesse) or OLCV overall, but the fact that they lied about how they made this decision in a press release, instead of admitting upfront that they couldn't follow their normal process given the circumstances.
As a member of the new press, Carla, it seems like you might care about press releases being truthful.
5:17 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
Peter: If you have evidence that there's some lie--then pony it up. Cuz frankly, this has become obnoxious and silly.
Mar 11, '10
First, congratulations to both Jeff and Karol for this endorsement. Well deserved in both cases. May I also suggest a different way to look at this process? Some seem to object to the OLCV giving the nod to candidates "just because they filled the questionnaire in early". Let's instead acknowledge that in the flurry of that 48-hour period, prospective candidates for both the Chair position and District 2 faced a flood of things to do and had to make choices of which things to do and which to leave for later (or not do at all). That in the midst of those overwhelming tasks, both Jeff and Karol decided to prioritize completing a complex OLCV questionnaire speaks volumes about how they will prioritize the issues OLCV advocates. It's smart for an advocacy group to give credit to candidates who put that advocacy group's issues at the top of their "to do" pile. Some allege an unfair insider's tilt because Karol got credit "just because she served on OLCV's board." Could it be that effective, dedicated service on the board means Karol already understands the issues, the trade-offs and the key players because she spent hundreds of volunteer hours working on them already? And what volunteer-supported organization could ever hope to recruit anyone in the future to serve on its board if the reward for such service was to be devalued in a later endorsement process? Seems to me OLCV got it right on the substance of its choices and on the process (given the time constraints that were way outside its control).
And by the way, hope to see you all at the OLCV dinner April 23!
Mar 11, '10
Are you serious about whether they lied?
Here's the quote from the press release
Following review of the questionnaire, OLCV volunteer committees conduct face-to-face interviews with each candidate and consider each candidate’s environmental record and their level of commitment to protecting Oregon’s environmental legacy,
and the admission above that they didn't interview each candidate. And do you really think they spent the time to look at each candidates record. Have you ever reviewed ten candidates in a day when you just realized they were candidates? Not.
Jeff and Karol did right. OLCV misrepresented their process.
7:33 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
Peter: At least two of the candidates backed out TODAY. Further, we know that Chuck Currie didn't fill out the endorsement paperwork.
I'm still having a tough time seeing the lie. If these candidates didn't fill out the paperwork, then they're not a candidate eligible for an endorsement interview. Again, if you have some evidence that folks who turned in the paperwork didn't get an interview--then please, let's see it.
8:24 p.m.
Mar 11, '10
I congratulate Karol on her endorsement from OLCV. As one of their board members, her endorsement was expected and deserved. I deeply appreciate OLCV’s work in the community and look forward to meeting with them next week. Unfortunately, I was unable in the 24-hour period given to me able to respond to their questionnaire and therefore suggested that we delay any meeting. I did not hear back from OLCV until after their press release was sent out today.
It was concerning in general that groups were rushing into making endorsements without fully providing sufficient time for debate or reflection. The publication date of the voter's pamphlet alone should not be the deciding factor in making endorsements. It is worth noting that Local 88 hosted a forum last night with all the candidates and decided not to make an endorsement at this time because they felt it wasn't right to rush the process.
Regardless of the process questions, OLCV’s work in the community is vital and I look forward to hearing their views regarding the future of Multnomah County.
This has been an exciting and challenging week for everyone involved with this race. I’m proud that in this short time people like Steve Novick, Gretchen Kafoury and Bob Durston (Erik Sten’s chief of staff) have endorsed my campaign noting the 25 years of experience I have working to make Multnomah County a better place by building partnerships with non-profits, religious organizations, businesses and local government.
Mar 11, '10
If you have evidence that OLCV considered the record of eight candidates in a day, or interviewed those eight candidates, or all the candidates who submitted a questionnaire, let's see it.
Clearly they didn't. That's why they provide themselves the easy out of "maybe we'll endorse someone else later."
Here's what the OLCV press release should have said: Due to the extremely short timeline, we were only able to review and interview candidates that responded to our questionnaire within 24 hours. While we made our endorsements based on that response, we reserve the right to endorse other candidates who are equally qualified, but were unable, for scheduling reasons, to respond given the tight timeline.
Instead, they put out their standard line that those interested in their endorsement respond to a "comprehensive" questionnaire and are then interviewed. There was nothing that recognized the ridiculousness of trying to respond to many interest groups (for example, labor also made endorsements) in such a short timeline.
It was a different process this time, and OLCV failed to admit it. Therefore, their portrayal of a fair, balanced endorsement process was a lie.
As Rev. Currie noted above, he didn't receive a response to his response, other than a press release. WTF?
Mar 12, '10
I don't think it is fair to compare Jeff and Karol's endorsements as the same. Jeff has a voting record and currently holds elected office. Karol has yet to hold elected office, so her work on environmental issues has been as Cogen's staffer. This is not to say at all that her work isn't valid, but I am concerned that OLCV failed to take all of the correct, fair steps before offering their endorsement. Even if Karol is the best environmental candidate, her endorsement is now in question.
On another note, OLCV does not always endorse board members. Steve Griffith, very moderate Republican, ran for the state house in 2008 and did not receive OLCV's endorsement, despite being a board member.
Mar 13, '10
I have to agree with Laura. One has to wonder why it had to be such a formal endorsement. Couldn't OLCV have simply highlighted candidates that have policies they like? Could have showcased Karol's great policy planks while soliciting more info. from other candidates. Looking at it objectively, which course, that or the one taken, advances the policy goals more? Which better massages the ego? That is my #1 complaint about non-profits with full-time paid staff. Starts off being about policy and ends up being about keeping the full-time jobs and self-promoting, before policy.
<hr/>