Good for you, Randy!

I have a similar story from 1986. At the Platform Convention (a luncheon?) Ed Fadeley tried a smear---"And if Neil were Governor, he would not have...". I knew nothing about Neil Goldschmidt other than what I had seen on TV. Ask the Mayor had always been a great show--how many elected officials at any branch of government would subject themselves to those questions--and have a legal pad to write things down, as well as saying about a broken street light "On Monday morning, you call Sam Smith in the...Dept. and tell him what you told me and that I told you to call".

Long story short, I walked around the convention hotel that day and I happened to see Neil G. sitting at a table. I walked up and said "This is what Fadeley said about you. I would like to know if that is true. " Neil said "No, he is wrong about that." ALSO, in his speech the next day, Neil said "And if I were governor, I WOULD HAVE...". What a way to answer a critic and impress the total stranger who had reported the insult and asked if it were true!

Pam is right when she says "Goldschmidt was a genius who lived a dark disgusting parallel life."

That doesn't change the fact that there are homes or whatever where there might otherwise have been the infamous Mt. Hood freeway. Or that young adults (some born when Carter was president) now live outside Portland and use MAX to commute to jobs downtown, thus lessening the rush hour traffic.

There are people who try guilt by association and other types of propaganda. And they will probably try to make something of our postings. But I have known Ted since he was St. Senator Kulongoski. I had thought Pete Sorenson was a nice guy until he made the crack we don't need a mediator. He doesn't seem to be doing the "if I were elected" discussion nearly enough. THAT is the definition of leadership, not confrontation and speechmaking for the sake of speeches. And that goes for anyone else out there who plans to challenge a Democratic incumbent!

As some people who know me have discovered in recent days, I have strong feelings about this---we really do need candidates who know what they would do if elected, as Randy said in his piece. Tom Potter had no way of knowing he'd be hit by an ice storm weeks after he was sworn in. But he appears to have done the right things. And let this be a lesson to those who say "negative campaigns work". None of the Francesconi attacks had anything to do with what Potter has faced so far as Mayor.

John Edwards was right when he said last year "Any time politicians are talking about themselves and their opponents is a time they are not listening to you".

Loved the line "But that’s a tea Neil brewed himself, and if he were left to steep in it alone, I would probably not be writing this story."

Many politicians do something dumb/evil and then wonder why they lose public respect. I have long said that in politics there is right, wrong and stupid. It was wrong for Neil to ruin the life of a young girl. It was also wrong to keep the secret and run for higher office. It was stupid to believe the secret would never come out. But it would also be stupid if anyone ran in 2006 saying "Don't trust anyone who has ever been friendly with Neil". Kevin Mannix used to be a Democratic legislator. Did he never have a friendly conversation with that particular Democratic governor who was elected in 1986? Did Kevin vote for Neil or Norma in 1986?

What Neil did was as bad as it gets short of murder. That doesn't mean everyone who ever knew Neil should be ashamed of what they saw when he was in politics. We could use more people who inspire ordinary citizens to have an attitude other than cynicism.

Excellent comment, LT. Thank you.

The Columbia Sportswear example relates to Jack's comment. Big Business asked the City staff to bend or ignore the rules for them. City said no, the rules are there to protect the river, transit corridors, and other public interests. Big Business walked (but not far), politicians fall over each other blaming the bureau staff - who were following the rules the Portland City Council adopted.

If the rules don't make sense, change the rules. Don't waive them for particular interests - that's corruption.

"Big Business asked the City staff to bend or ignore the rules for them."

That is not what happened. In fact, the property is still vacant and is appropriately zoned for an occupancy such as Columbia Sportswear.

I am happy to go into details if requested, but the short version of what happened with Columbia Sportswear had nothing to do with rules that needed to be waived to put Columbia Sportswear on the site.

It was, quite simply, how they were treated, i.e., disrespectfully by city staff...a common complaint up to two years ago. Both city staff involved with the negotiations in addition to Columbia Sportswear representatives have both relayed to me a nearly identical accounting of their joint meetings.

As a result, Portland lost over 500 home grown family wage jobs to Washington County, the tax base Columbia Sportswear generated for the City of Portland and the lost opportunity to have a world class design for a headquarter building situated between OMSI and the Portland Opera on the east bank of the Willamette.

The loss of Columbia Sportswear has hurt every taxpaying, working class person that lives in Portland. The sad saga that lead to their moving is inexcusable.

While I was not on the council at the time of Columbia Sportswear's leaving Portland, I talked with individuals from the city who sat in on the meetings with Columbia Sportswear. They relayed to me they were appalled at how some staff interacted with the Columbia Sportswear negotiators. I can only tell you it was a common theme that I heard from many people, both private citizens, businesses and even some city staffers.

In order that I understood the reasons for Columbia Sportswear’s relocation as best I could to hopefully avoid mistakes of the past, I met with the officials at Columbia Sportswear who were directly involved in the negotiations.

I was told, and later confirmed with city staff, that they requested no tax breaks or incentives to stay, no waiver of any building or zoning codes and were eager to build a world class building on what they considered to be a show case site for their world headquarters.

They had done an analysis of where their employees worked and they determined that moving to the inner east side would be an ideal spot. Further, they were excited about locating along the Willamette with the esplanade running in front of their building so their employees could use that during their lunch hours.

Some people take condescending and arrogant behavior on the part of public employees very, very poorly. I was told that there were no building, design or planning issues -all of which are common challenges in any large scale project- that Columbia Sportswear was not willing and/or capable of addressing.

What they told me they weren’t willing to do was to be treated disrespectfully and arrogantly by city personnel.

Apparently, after one such exchange, they began looking at a site in Washington County and ultimately located their headquarters at the end of an industrial road.

I too would be skeptical of this accounting had I not heard it time and time again from private citizens to small businesses to large commercial concerns who interacted with city staff on projects as small as building a back yard deck.

Creating a customer service training program was the initiative we designed to address the "attitude" problem. Every employee at BDS has now been through the original training. We now provide on going training to keep employees focused on finding solutuions, where possible, instead of focusing on why a project can't happen due to a solvable problem. As a result, in a survey done by the City Auditor last year, customer satisfaction with the permitting process at BDS climbed faster than for any other city service.

I am convinced that if Columbia Sportswear came in today to get a permit to locate on the same site, we would have approached their application with a much more professional approach than what previously existed. The result would be that instead of a vacant lot that PGE stores telephone polls on now, there would be a building all of Portland could be proud of tucked in between OMSI and the Portland Opera (formerly Ch 12) building overlooking the Willamette River.

I would be remiss if I didn't add that I am proud of the changes that the employees have made in the last two years.

If I led some to think they may have been forced into behaving differently, that is not the case.

I am a true believer that employees behave according to the way they are treated by their managers. If treated with distrust and suspicion, they behave that way themselves. If empowered and trusted, they rise to challenges and develop solutions on their own that creates an ownership for them in their organization.

I can only tell you that the tale I told in my prior comments in no way reflects how the employees interact with the public today. I am very, very proud to be associated with them.

Many accounts of the Columbia Sportswear saga differ significantly from Commissioner Leonard's -- even the pro-business slant on it, see http://brainstormnw.com/archive/mar02_feature.html. Two of the issues were the setback from the Willamette, which at the time was under review system-wide, and surface parking. Real issues, not just "attitude". Was a 25' setback from the Willamette adequate for Columbia Sportswear, at a time when a public process rejected 50' as too narrow in North Macadam?

And then on attitude: In that article, the company rep is quoted saying the planner in Washington County said, "What kind of zoning would you like, Mr. Boyle?", and that clinched the deal. Do we really want to live in a Portland where businesses are assured the Comprehensive Plan will be changed whenever they ask? Should such deals be cut in private staff-applicant-Commissioner meetings, or in a public process?

Amanda says, "What kind of zoning would you like",,,,,Do we really want to live in a Portland where,,,,the,,,Plan will be changed whenever they ask? Should such deals be cut in private staff-applicant-Commissioner meetings, or in a public process?""""

I think you just described the PDC, South Waterfront, Cascade Station, Bechtel, Gerdling-Edlen, Goldscmidt-Imeson-Carter, Schnitzer, Urban Renewal, Portland State, Ziedel, Portland Family of Funds, Tax abatements and TIF. Is there any disagreement that many cooked up backroom deals have occured to satify the thirst for private profits and the whims of city planners and politicians at the expense of the public interest?

"Do we really want to live in a Portland where businesses are assured the Comprehensive Plan will be changed whenever they ask?"

No. But with all do respect, the setback and the Comprehensive Plan was not the issue. In fact, a change in the Comprehensive Plan would have required a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a public hearing and positive vote by the City Council…. not some “back room deal” as is suggested.

Again, ALL major projects have a pre construction conference with all of the various interests. There are always negotiations that occur relative to how various codes are applied to a specific project.

Another illuminating example occurred right next door to the proposed Columbia Sportswear site on the east bank of the Willamette in the central east side.

When Channel 12 vacated their building the Portland Opera saw it as an opportunity to locate there. They were excited about the site for much the same reasons as Columbia Sportswear.

They spent a lot of money remodeling the building in order to bring a first class venue to Portland for live performances.

One afternoon I got an angry phone call from the director of the Portland Opera. He said it was imperative that I meet with him and his board –all volunteer- to discuss a “crisis” that was threatening the success of their project.

The issue was the requirement that a fire door be installed in a specific room within the building.

When I met with the Portland Opera Board and the planner, I discovered that while an exit door was in fact required, the placement of it could have been in one of any number of locations within the room to satisfy the requirement of the building code.

The planner was requiring the door to be placed on the south side of the room. This placement required an easement on the adjacent property, ironically the property Columbia Sportswear wanted to place their building on, that required more time and expense than a placement on the eastside of the room…a location that the Opera happily agreed to because they determined they could also use the door for easier delivering of supplies.

Both BDS and the Portland Opera were satisfied that the building code was complied with in a way that optimized the use of the building while eliminating unecessary expense.

Why hadn't this solution been arrived at with the Portland Opera before they were ready to have a collective stroke? I refer to my previous comments on the Columbia Sporstwear negotiations.

The Portland Opera example represents a problem solving approach… not waiving code requirements.

Randy,

Thanks for your this post. Every time you tell us you think we'll have to pay a cell phone tax or renew the MC income surcharge, you follow up with something like this that I find moving and inspiring. Can you please try to be consistent!

The post makes me melancholic for the Portland that I remember from growing up here in the late 1970s. Neil Goldschmidt was a model of what I thought political leaders should be like, and one who made me excited (as a 16 year old) about Portland, Oregon, and its potential for the future.

What I find most disturbing about the Goldschmidt affair is how easily I can use the it as a metaphor for Portland's political saga over the past twenty years.

Portland still behaves as if we are still the feisty, innovative, attractive young upstart. The mantle of innovation has been taken away from us by the new young Turks such as the Research Triangle, Austin TX, and of course Seattle.

We continue to act the young stud while instead we've become a bit older, a bit grayer, and a bit paunchier. That doesn't stop us from leering at the young lasses (biotech, "creative class", etc) while we pursue the next backroom deal.

I don't blame Kulongoski for Goldschmidt. But I would not call Ted a particularly inspiring or innovative leader, and that's what I think Oregon direly needs. That's what Neil had and he frittered it away. Tragic.

Now Potter? I have to admit, I was very skeptical during the campaign. Yet, his call for reconsidering the antiquated city charter, and his feisty approach in Salem has made me take a second look.

Steve, I agree many of the deals you list were sorely lacking in open public process. I disagree that politicians and planners make them to satisfy personal whims at the expense of the long term public interest. Without open public debate (before the deal has been struck, rather than after), it's difficult for city staff and elected officials to consider the full range of public interests, however for the most part I believe that's their intent.

The issue is public process. We all agree good businesses are vital to keeping Portland a wonderful place to live and work, and that city employees must be respectful to both employers and neighbors. The permit system is set up to balance both interests in a clear, objective, and predictable manner, with the fundamental goal of seeking the long term public good. Having one Commissioner decide what that long term public good is, and cracking heads to get there, isn't always the best approach for finding and achieving it. A person might agree in this particular case, but then what about the others, like Steve mentioned?

From Neil and Ted to Columbia Sportswear to Public Involvement. phew! I'm dizzy.

Now that the topic seems to have come to roost in an area about which I have particular passion, let's talk about Public Involvement. As vice-chair of the Multmonah County Citizen Involvement Committee, I have been asked along with other CIC board members to speak out at Neighborhood meetings and such. We are not only promoting a series of open Forums on the new County budget but also recruiting members.

When I present our organization to others I focus more on why I am involved rather than what we do. The reasoning is simple: there is ample information about MCIC and our mission (www.citizenweb.org) but nothing about why those of who are involved chose to do so.

In a nutshell, I believe that if government is to continue to evolve it must involve and embrace citizen input at unprecedented levels.

Personally I'm tired of the same old faces and voices and often quite angry when they purport to speak for me. We need both variety and diversity among those voices. And not just to a point that merely reflects our community as it is but at a level that reflects the community we aspire to become. That requires creative and consistent outreach. And active listening.

Speaking of listening, I'm also tired of the deaf ear that's lent all too often to citizen input. Not just to the input that's actually offered but to the very IDEA of soliciting it. Granted those same old faces offering stale ideas furthering a narrow agenda at an ever increasing pitch and volume has become the standard for such input. And that standard of public input has slowed progress in many cases to a screeching halt. However the need for fresh ideas, new faces and innovative approaches has never been greater.

We have a plethora of incredibly gifted citizens in this community who deserve the opportunity to speak and be heard. Perhaps we have another Neil or two (the good Neil) among them. The sooner we can facilitate that input the sooner those that should will actually listen. Agreement and consensus will come later. For now what we need are more and different voices.

In addition to the MCIC, I believe that Mr. Potter is (re)establishing a similar structure to facilitate and monitor citizen involvement within city government. I urge everyone who is affected by the policies and decisions made by our elected officials and their appointed bureaucrats to step up and be a part of a solution, any solution.

Frank says, "I haven't heard a single concrete thing that any city employee is alledged to have said that caused Columbia Sportswear to quit the city."

Frank,Amanda and Co. Please read this account of the Columbia Sportwear incident. Then try again.

http://www.brainstormnw.com/archive/mar02_feature.html HOW THE CITY OF PORTLAND LOST COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR

For Vera Katz, the departure of Columbia Sportswear from Portland may be “an old story,” but it reflects current reality for the city’s business community —a stark example of conflicting world views that intersected when Tim Boyle and Columbia decided, in 2000, that they had out-grown their headquarters in St. Johns.

“We wanted to expand our facilities,” says Boyle, “and we knew that our building in St. Johns was not a good candidate. So after we did a survey to find out where our employees live, we found that ground zero was the East end of the Morrison Bridge.”

Amanda writes>>>>Having one Commissioner decide what that long term public good is, and cracking heads to get there, isn't always the best approach for finding and achieving it. A person might agree in this particular case, but then what about the others, like Steve mentioned?<<<<

I think its absolutely fascinating this discussion wound up here, given where this thread started. For granting too much blind power to one individual is exactly how we got to today where, after years when so many knew, but never spoke up, we learn about the pitiful abuse of a child by Portland's greatest home-grown star.

Long ago I worked for Goldschmidt. That was when I first realized what a potent, real physical force charisma is. He is the most powerfully charismatic person I've ever met. He’s smart, too, with an original turn of mind. And he did some good stuff. A long time ago. So Portland loved him, and we ceded our responsibility and our authority to his "star" to "the one strong and powerful” (sorry, just finished reading “Under the Banner of Heaven” and Krakauer’s take on early Mormon leaders is spooky in its shadowing of how power can couple with predator proclivities in certain charismatic leaders.)

The Golden gov is not the first man, too well adored by his public, to use his power to hide his ruin of a child...

And he won’t be the last.

Our willingness to hand our lives to him on a silver platter could not be more exposed than by the reaction to his role in the Texas Pacific broughhaha. “Oh, now all will be well. Now Portland can rest assured that all will be done in their best interests.” Yikes. How scary is that? How much cool-aid HAD we drunk?

In the meantime we look everywhere for a scapegoat to blame for those long years of silence that damned that young girl, except to ourselves.

It’s our culture. Our love of stars, our willing blank check to the charismatic or demagogic among us, that made the silence inevitable.

The sad thing is that because we can’t separate the person from the process, or the idea, we wind up with the situation Kari is bemoaning – where anything Goldschmidt did or touched we now view as “magically” evil. We find ourselves unable to evaluate with any perspective, because we are so stuck on the reflection of the personality we see in the issue.

I support MAX. I don’t support the Tram. I hope I have made my evaluation based on the merits of each case, not on stars-in-my eyes for any individual involved.

Now we need to move on. Better we figure out how to play a stronger part in our messy, slow, sometimes inefficient democracy – better we do the tedious "nerdy" work to make the rules more fair, for everyone, whether they’re a little pizza shop on Belmont — or Columbia Sportswear, which isn’t hurting and which will continue to provide jobs and resources and purchasing power to the larger metro area we all live in. (Yeah, they’re still shopping at Nordy’s...)

Anne says, "I support MAX. I don’t support the Tram."

Sorry Anne, there is little difference. And as a TriMet driver said today on Lars, "It's not all it's cracked up to be"

But let's not leave the judgment to preferences and opinion. Much has been looked at regarding our MAX system. By transportation experts and curious analysts. The objective read of the collective data is clear cut. Our MAX is not fast, is not high capacity, does not reduce congestion at all but in fact increases it, does not reduce pollution and is the most costly and inefficient transportation tool we have. This is not opinion. The numbers do not lie, only TriMet does. And voters said No. One big plus however is profits for the powerful clients of Neil. No Bid Bechtel for instance. MAX is the perfect example of back room deals for the rich with the public paying an enormous price. Unfortunately in this case the propaganda has so far obscured the price. South Waterfront and the upcoming Transit Mall will mean many millions for the powerful deal makers while the public and the city takes a huge negative hit. Look out.

I read the Brainstorm piece, too. I didn't see any charges of "attitude" or even an analogous situation to the one Commissioner Leonard described with Portland Opera (which, BTW, made me giggle and think that the planner who insisted on the door on the right probably has a life-time sinecure at Qwest in his/her future -- or, if not Qwest, perhaps Cingular, or AT&T? -- yes, we too have suffered...)

I mean, disclosing the need for a zone change? What, better they not mention it? As for Columbia's sad sad plaint -- "oh we miss Neil, things wouldn't have been like this with Neil" -- I think it's funny that many of the people gnashing and wailing over this issue now are the same ones who most hate what Neil did...

I did note the hard-ball tail-twisting business-busting tactics of Multnomah county with some amaze -- why they almost sounded like Donald Trump, in his heyday! Make those gov people work more like a business, indeed...

Frank and Anne Dufay have accomplished giving living examples of the "attitude" described of arrogant city employees.

Both he and Anne come across as being a little overly defensive of any discussion about public employees who may be less than helpful when dealing with the public.

I hope he/they have limited contact with the public they are supposed to serve.

To the contrary, Mr/Ms Clemme, Frank received a Spirit of Portland Employee of the Year award for providing exemplary public service. He was nominated by citizens from the Multnomah Neighborhood Association -- a group which doesn't tolerate attitude, arrogance, or defensiveness from anyone. And Anne is employed by a citizen board serving neighborhoods, whose volunteers recently rewarded her with a promotion.

Do you have something substantive to contribute to the conversation, other than the ad hominem attack?

Tram = Max A good way to consider the Columbia Sportswear incident is to imagine the same thing is happening today with a similar business and employer. Only the building site is the Tram landing pad in South Waterfront. The exact same thing would happen. Followed by the same excuses. Tram folks would be going on about how they preserved the tram pad and that's a good thing. Is it or would it be?

It's good to consider this comparison because most people see the Tram for what it is. Yes, even though Randy Gragg of the Oregonian referred to all of the good CTLH neighborhood folks and others who opposed the tram as anti-tram extremists. The project is a farce from any angle. So much so that the ultimate sign of total Portland dysfunction will be the day ground breaks for that Tram. If it does indeed happen, in the face of such overwhelming negatives, red flags, fatal flaws and opposition it will serve as proof positive public involved is a shame and city officials are negligent beyond repair. Call it conflicts of interests, corruption, incompetence or anything else.

So would it be worse if the city drove away a large employer because of the Tram? Nope. Because side by side MAX is just as bad as the Tram and likely worse. There is little difference in those supporting the Tram from those who support MAX. In both cases the true cost, ridership, function are equally unworthy and illegitimate. Imagine this reality with MAX. The cost of North Interstate MAX could have doubled the bus service to the entire TriMet service area. The $2 billion plus cost of our light rail system pales in comparison to the Tram's ultimate $34 million. (yes it's 34) However, proportionately speaking in terms of length and ridership they are equally irresponsible. Both are being advanced on falsehoods directed by our public agencies. Light rail is the single biggest reason why so many sidewalks are non existent or in disrepair. Why out neighborhoods are being deluged with cut through traffic. Why commerce mobility is choking. Why road capacity shortages are driving congestion to levels only rail fanatics can ignore.
Both Tram and MAX have been escorted along with the dealings of Neil Goldschmidt, his clients, cronies and public officials who substitute belief for oversight.

From Willamette Week The Nose, on the Tram Wednesday, July 03, 2002 "Maybe it's the craftsmanship of former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt, who works for the landowners and whose partner, Tom Imeson, sits on the OHSU board."

Sure, Goldschmidt killed the Mt. Hood freeway, and that certainly delights many of my Blue friends. But the aging, death corridor road, to and across Mt Hood, has killed many Oregonians. Light rail has killed 18 people. Our region is in commerce and commuter gridlock, low income housing is losing ground, EPA cleanup compliance is the worst in the country, there is no money for ANYTHING and the happy face beat goes on.
The next time you criticize those who support the Tram remember your case for MAX is no better. Better stop that Tram and look closer at the MAX.
It is not doing what you imagine. No matter how pretty it looks.

Amanda, I think you meant to say "ad hominem and ad feminam".

Linguistically speaking ad hominem attacks refer to personal considerations and not logic or reason.

Both of the commenters I referred to offer a substantive basis for one to conclude logically that they approach others with a superior if not condescending demeanor.

Heaven help the poor soul who approaches Mr. Dufay for a permit as he reaches underneath the counter and pulls out his 14 inch thick rule book that he sternly slams down onto the counter.

And yes, I do like San Francisco. Thank you very much!

Both of the commenters (sic) I referred to offer a substantive basis for one to conclude logically that they approach others with a superior if not condescending demeanor. <<<

Oh good grief. Can we get back to discussing the issues, please? You do realize that turning to personal attacks on your fellow debaters makes it appear you have no argument of substance to advance?

What precisely is your point in this discussion? Do you think that Columbia should have been given carte-blanche to get around or ignore the law and code, unlike other, less well-connected businesses?

What was it in Frank’s request to know, outside vague “them bad guys over there” smears, WHAT the staff did that was wrong. What he asked is below: “If a city employee implied there was a law that wasn't there, or lied, or was, in fact, rude...that's not OK. But I'm still not hearing that. I'm hearing we have laws in Portland that have a basis in planning, that have constituents in the community, and a reason for being...and it's just not that an unresponsive bureaucracy needs a boot in the behind.”

What is it you take umbrage in, in the above? From what do you distill your "defensive" charge? Or, do you object to a "low-level" planner telling an applicant they will need a zone change? Why? (Sorry, but this is secret information, you'll need to make an appointment with my manager to find out what zoning issues you may face. Take a number...)

Do you think every city employee should be cutting private deals with every person who comes to his/her desk? Based on what? How much they like your shiny white smile? What if they don’t like your smile?

Do you hate the tram? Max? (Yes, I realize this issue if highly off-topic, which is why I have not responded to those who want to take the topic there) but, at least state your issue.

I have no idea what kind of person you might be. Are you the person at my work's ISP who has been so helpful and responsive when I have needed them? Are you the jerk who I flipped off on Hawthorne when you almost ran me, and my dog, down in a crosswalk? How should I know from this debate?

Likewise, you have no clue what either Frank or I are like. In fact, you're so far off reality it is funny. Sort of. So, go ahead, be sarcastic and cutting and witty - but keep it on point. I appreciate a good debate. But I don’t think the thread we are discussing was titled, “Frank and Anne – Meanies Behind the Desk, or Favorites of the Folks they Work For?”

(Hey, I'd LIKE to tell you about Frank, I'm very proud of him. I could go on and on on the subject :-) But, I don't want to try the patience of folks on this tread, who, I believe, are mostly actually interested in the REAL subject under discussion...)

Gary,

Can I play devil's advocate for a moment? That's my job as "the prof". You write:

In a nutshell, I believe that if government is to continue to evolve it must involve and embrace citizen input at unprecedented levels.

The contrary position is that government can't accomodate unprecedented levels of citizen input. I can appeal to abstract social science concepts like Arrow cycles (I know I'm giving goosebumps to all those who remember their undergraduate years), but the basic message is this: the more and more you involve different and diverse voices, you can actually make it more difficult to reach a decision that satisfies even a majority.

So. Can you reflect a bit about how we can both encourage citizen engagement and input, but also how (or what structures exist to) channel and "package" these ideas into forms that can be usefully communicated to and acted upon by our public officials?

bix speaks for many:

The issue of public process raises a question. When are the recommendations of the Public Involvement Task Force finally going to come before Council, and is the Council ready to adopt them?

This is a question I've been asking as well and havent heard any feedback on -- Randy, Erik -- anyone? Please respond?

Allehseya and B!X-

The Public Involvement Task Force has been on hold while ONI nears completion of the equally important update of Neighborhood Standards and City Code 3.96.

This update should go to Council by March 2005.

In an effort to expedite the recommendations of the Public Involvement Task Force, ONI and committee co-chairs will be meeting with Mayor Potter's Office to determine whether the committee's work is compatible with the Bureau Innovation Project and the broader community dialogues the Mayor envisions.

I support the task force without qualification and will enthusiastically support it's recommendations.

As I read through all the comments on this issue and comments not even close to the original issue, I remembered why I haven't been reading this blog regularly for the past few weeks. Too much whinning, bickering and attacking. Yikes!

Some of you need to leave Portland more often and see what it's like in other cities in Oregon.

Blue Oregon Bloggers - Quit attacking each other. Be courteous and polite and people will want to listen to you. Be mean and self-rightous and people won't, which is exactly what Randy was trying to say.

Right On Sally! This is supposed to be the Blue OREGON blog, not Portland and sometimes Lane County!

Sally- Thank you very much for your on target words of advice.

And please come back!