Interesting articles

Such a good crop of reports worth reading today in Portland’s media! In addition to the coverage of Metro’s vote on the Convention Center hotel in the Tribune and Oregonian, reviewed in my post below, there’s a great feature on Robin Plance by Julie Sullivan in the Oregonian, giving an overview of his work on the Willamette cleanup. And coincidentally, a piece about how we’re paying for the Superfund mess by Todd Murphy in the Tribune‘s print edition.

Public Campaign Financing receives more coverage by Jim Redden in the Tribune. Including this snippet, which made me smile:

“When Lewis began collecting contributions that month, he soon discovered that some contributors who received the form in the mail did not use it correctly.

Among other things, they did not keep one of the sheets for themselves or understand they were supposed to identify themselves as both the contributor and the solicitor.”

Well, duh. When people have only contributed to a Public Campaign Finance Fund candidate once before, and the form has changed, it’s not surprising they wouldn’t figure out what’s required, by reading a letter arriving out of the blue from someone they don’t know. It’s the campaign’s responsibility to make sure the donor forms are completed correctly. Given the new form and even greater importance of avoiding fraud, in many cases that may require having a real person, volunteering for the campaign, sign for having received the donation and returning the copy of the form to the contributor.

“After Lewis discussed the problems with the auditor’s office on several occasions, new instructions were added to the forms in July and August.

“Some of my opponents are going to have an easier time than I did because I was the first. I’m not complaining, but I feel like I’m something of a guinea pig,” Lewis said.”

Note to Public Campaign Finance Fund candidates: It’s not the Auditor’s job to make the program easy for you. By participating, you sign up to help make it successful.

I felt honored to be the guinea pig when I was the first to qualify in the inaugural run. I thought of myself as a “friendly” one, not the nasty creature that bit me when Ali brought the class pet home for the weekend in kindergarten. And I found it highly satisfying to provide suggestions that made it work better for subsequent users, thus improving the system. “Public service”, one might say.

The article isn’t entirely accurate in stating “Efforts to fix the campaign program are creating additional work for participating candidates, however. The program now has so many requirements that the city auditor’s office, which oversees the program, is offering a two-hour training session to participating candidates.” The trainings are mandatory, and they’re not only to make sure candidates know and understand the rules, but also to make it easier for participants. I had to figure out what I was and wasn’t allowed to do as I went along. I agree with Janice Thompson:

“Program supporter Janice Thompson does not believe new requirements should discourage any candidate from participating in the program. Thompson, director of the Democracy Reform Oregon advocacy group, said candidates should look at any problems as opportunities to engage voters.

“Campaigns require a level of organization and communication skills that should not be overtaxed by this program,” Thompson said.”

In fact, I’ll take that one step further. I believe one of the benefits of the Public Campaign Financing program is that it gives citizens the opportunity to see which candidates have those organizational and communication skills, as well as citywide support and the capacity to involve citizens usefully and appropriately.

I read with satisfaction the wording of my mention in the Trib:

“Lewis expects it will attract a dozen or more candidates before the filing deadline. Rumored candidates include Fish, Metro Councilor Robert Liberty, Sten aide Rich Rodgers and Amanda Fritz, a former planning commissioner who ran a publicly funded campaign against Saltzman in 2006 and lost.”

I’m guessing I may be the only person in the city this matters to, but “a former planning commissioner who ran a publicly funded campaign against Saltzman in 2006 and lost” sounds better to me than “Amanda Fritz, who ran unsuccessfully in 2006 against incumbent Dan Saltzman”. Noted and appreciated, thanks, Jim.