Breaking: Power Grab Still Short on Signatures
Charlie Burr
From the Oregonian:
This just in from the city auditor's office. The re-count of the First Things First Committee's signatures shows they still failed to make the May ballot. In fact, in this count, the committee fell further behind the required 26,691 valid signatures required.
PGE, Qwest, and Gard and Gerber have now fallen 836 short on this third signature count.
Read the rest here.
 |
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
1:13 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Conversation with the City spokesperson indicates that circulators mismanaged the process of signing and dating each petition sheet. They left off dates, crossed them out and didn't redo them, didn't resign (or initial) after changing the date, or signed BEFORE the sheet was completed. All of these errors invalidate the entire sheet.
Ouch.
1:26 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
The screen fades in on the office of Gard & Gerber. A low muttering is passing from person to person, slowly and steadily growing louder until by the end it reaches thunderous proportions.
I can’t stand it I know you planned it I’m gonna set it straight, this watergate I can’t stand rocking when I’m in here Because your crystal ball ain’t so crystal clear So while you sit back and wonder why I got this fucking thorn in my side Oh my, it’s a mirage I’m tellin’ y’all it’s sabotage
So listen up ’cause you can’t say nothin’ You’ll shut me down with a push of your button? But yo I’m out and I’m gone I’ll tell you now I keep it on and on
’cause what you see you might not get And we can bet so don’t you get souped yet You’re scheming on a thing that’s a mirage I’m trying to tell you now it’s sabotage
Whyyy; our backs are now against the wall Listen all of y’all it’s a sabotage Listen all of y’all it’s a sabotage Listen all of y’all it’s a sabotage Listen all of y’all it’s a sabotage
I can’t stand it, I know you planned it But I’m gonna set it straight this watergate But I can’t stand rockin’ when I’m in this place Because I feel disgrace because you’re all in my face But make no mistakes and switch up my channel I’m buddy rich when I fly off the handle What could it be, it’s a mirage You’re scheming on a thing - that’s sabotage
1:33 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
I sure would love to see Ginny Burdick in 70s detective clothing--right down to the muttonchops and bad coffee breath!
That Sabotage video may be the best of all time...
1:35 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Finally, some appreciation for that "sabotage" link.
I guess the title on this update could have been, 'Power Grab Short on Signatures, But Not Excuses." Hope all have a happy Mardi Gras - Laisse Le Bon Temps Rouler!
1:53 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
"Look what you've done! I'm mellllllting!"
1:56 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Thanks Bix. I'd been trying to figure out how to work the Beastie Boys into more news stories. Now I don't have to.
Feb 28, '06
I love the image of Lars Larson in his favorite tinfoil hat!
More please.
Feb 28, '06
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE HAPPY? I THOUGHT DEMOCRATS BELIEVED IN DEMOCRACY. WHAT DOES DEMOCRACY MEAN?
LAST TIME I LOOKED UP THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY IT MEANT ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO VOTE.
What it seems like to me is that you are more interested in POWER than democracy. The POWER to IMPOSE your policy choices on others.
Sure, its true the represenitives(the commissioners) voted, but INTENTIONALLY set any vote of the people off into the distant future.
MAYBE thats why people are REVOLTING against paying ANY MORE TAXES.
THINK ABOUT IT.
5:47 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Jim: I THOUGHT DEMOCRATS BELIEVED IN DEMOCRACY.
I believe in democracy; First Things First believes in Democracy Resources.
Feb 28, '06
One thing I haven't heard yet is what the folks who spent all this money will have to say about the company that got paid all the $$ to collect the signatures. Who collected them?
With such obvious process problems causing them to fail to get on the ballot, you'd think they'd want to sue for their money back!
Feb 28, '06
Jim You should of been out gathering sigs, instead of waiting for someone else to <strikethrough>(fund)</strikethrough> do it.
Feb 28, '06
At least drop the power grab moniker. All that was trying to be done was to let voters have a say, god forbid.
This is right out of the Christine Gregoire / Karl Rove playbook.
7:19 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Not true, Steve. The primary motive was to curb what they called "politician welfare." But you are seriously kidding yourself if you don't think the intent of the entities who contributed about a half million dollars in the last cycle, was to preserve their influence with City lawmakers.
7:19 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
get a grip, Steve. the rules for ballot measures are so crystal clear, even Bill Sizemore gets them right. to fail at this level requires a level of ineptitude that should leave us in awe. these people had a full opportunity, and tons of money, to do this right. and they couldn't. they futzed it big time, and there's nothing anti-democratic in that.
not to mention, the people of Portland have overwhelmingly yawned in their faces. looks like the voters had their say.
(and anyone who equates Gregoire & Rove has demonstrated some serious deficiencies in sense. yikes.)
Feb 28, '06
At least drop the power grab moniker. All that was trying to be done was to let voters have a say, god forbid.
If you truly believe that every voter in a jurisdiction is just itching for the chance to vote for one more ballot measure, then you have a valid point. But there are Oregonians who are tired of having one measure after another being thrust upon them and told they should be glad they are having a chance to vote.
Do you really believe there are no busy voters who think they elect officials to study and deal with such issues?
Feb 28, '06
This is right out of the Christine Gregoire / Karl Rove playbook.
There's a Gregoire/Rove playbook?! What kind of bizarro conspiracy theory does that come from?
Feb 28, '06
OK, if this was such a great idea, then why can't let Erik put it in front of the voters if we are so sure they would approve it?
Calling this a power grab by merely depriving the voters a chance to vote is ironic. Unless a power grab means putting this in front of voters.
By Gregoire/Rove, I meant both have been accused of playing fast/loose with elections in Wash, Fla and Ohio.
8:45 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
We have a minimum number of signatures that a petition must get before the measure can get on the ballot. This keeps every little thing from ending up on the ballot.
The voters speak twice on an issue--
One: Do they feel it deserves to be on the ballot.
Two: Should it pass or fail?
It seems to me the voters already spoke by not signing the petitions.
The ballots are crowded enough as it is-- we don't have to put every single idea before the voters. That is why we vote in elected officials-- so they can make some of the decisions for us.
If the people in Portland really wanted this on the ballot, you would have seen a lot more signatures on those petitions. Even with the problems with dating and such, there still should have been enough signatures.
However, the people in Portland are obviously not that interested in putting in on the ballot. Maybe they're waiting to see it in action a time or two before they make a decision on it.
Feb 28, '06
.......T O S S ... T H E ... B U M S ... O U T ...! ! !
If you feel the City Council has overstepped their authority with Voter Required Subsidies (or "VRS" as I prefer to call VOE), you are welcome to vote against all incumbents as they run for reelection.
Notably, Randy Leonard voted against VOE, but Sten and Saltzman both supported it. Every sitting commissioner (except Sten) said they would not accept VOE subsidies for their own reelection campaign in order to avoid the obvious conflict of interest.
It seems unlikely that Sten or Saltzman will lose in the primary, but I'll be voting for whichever candidate has the best shot at giving them real competition in November.
9:46 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Steve, if it's such a great idea, why put it in front of the voters at all if we're so sure it would be approved? Seems like an awful waste of time and money.
Gregoire was accused of playing fast and loose, but never by anyone other than the talk radio shock troops and loose lipped Chris Vance, and never in court, when it counted. You'll note the contest petition raises not a single claim of fraudulent dealings by either Gregoire or the King County REALS. Why is that? Because they knew they had NOTHING. And they got spanked in court like they had nothing.
Bruce, I do like the name Voter Required Subsidies. They should be required--it prevents Voter Volunteered Donations from deciding the election and unduly influencing the winner. And they let Voters become Candidates, which is a good thing. If you don't like it Bruce, step up and declare. You've got 7 days left.
Feb 28, '06
Jenni:
Roughly 40,000 people signed the FTF petition even after you deduct the duplicates and non-Portland residents.
Those 40,000 people had no control over whether or not the gatherers would properly date and sign each petition.
To suggest there was little support for the First Things First petition is unmitigated horse manure. That the petition failed to qualify is one thing; to suggest those 40,000 people represent the only Portlanders at odds with VOE taxpayer subsidies is quite another.
It should be a very interesting primary. I can only hope the spillover disgust will extend to the Multnomah County contests as well. Incumbents beware!
10:20 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Bruce, let's do the math on that. In the first count (the one where the sheet issues were not checked), FTF fell 600 signatures short.
In the second count, the 'validity rate' improved by 49 signatures in the sample, the correction due to the 'computer glitch'. If you extrapolate the sample to the full set of signatures, that means it improved by about 250 signatures, still not enough to carry it over the top, even if you ignore the problems in the way the sheets were signed.
So the number "after you deduct the duplicates and non-Portland residents" is under the number required, it's certainly not 40,000.
10:53 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Even without the bad sheets, saying they had 40,000 signatures is preposterous. If they had that many, they would have passed the freakin' audit, wouldn'ay?
They needed 26,000 good ones. They didn't have that many, it turns out. As to whether they had the sigs or not, I think the question has been adequately answered.
11:20 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
One down, one to go.
Feb 28, '06
If the petition did not get the required number of signatures, fine, but the glee of the people who support voter owned elections, suggests they are afraid of a vote of the people. Why? Because they are afraid their policy choice of requiring tax payer money to be spent on political campaigns would be rejected at the polls. If they were confident of the peoples support, it would be a yawn either way.
Feb 28, '06
Charie Burr, Thats a funny post. "One down, one to go." But I'm afraid that attitude will lead to never getting a vote passed to raise taxes, and you know what. I'm happy about that.
11:49 p.m.
Feb 28, '06
Jim, don't you get it? We're not laughing at the fact that it failed; we're laughing at the people who messed it up, how much they spent messing it up, and how much they whined and whispered conspiracy! when they learned they messed it up. THAT is what's funny.
12:08 a.m.
Mar 1, '06
And the proponents ARE NOT opposed to having the people vote on it. It's scheduled to be on the ballot in 2010. We simply want the voters to have an informed opinion, having seen it in action for 2-3 cycles, rather than making up their minds under the conditions of...
wait for it...
That's right ... BIG MONEY SOUND BITE POLITICS ... the very thing it is intended to help fix.
Mar 1, '06
Charie Burr, It doesn't matter whether I get it. What matters is the trust voters have that their tax dollars are being spent wisely. Voter owned elections is just another example of poorly spent tax dollars to add to the list,ie, the tram, PGE Park, water billing, cost over runs at South Water Front, and covering the reservours. There is a huge perception in portland by the voters that tax dollars are not being wisely spent as evinced by the polls against the Portland school tax.
Mar 1, '06
Chris Smith, so you want several million dollars spent on an experiment, hoping the people will bail you out later after you've had your way for four years. Well, I guess we'll see, but you may find you can't make bail.
Mar 1, '06
Mr.Smith, never underestimate the people, and never make them out to be a fool, the people may just slap you back and all you stand for.
1:20 a.m.
Mar 1, '06
It's scheduled to be on the ballot in 2010.
There's no such thing. The current City Council learned from the city attorney that it can't commit future councils to a public vote on anything. So nothing's "scheduled" until it's actually referred. Could be 2010, could be 2007, could be never.
Mar 1, '06
What matters is the trust voters have that their tax dollars are being spent wisely.
Jim, you are guilty of a common fallacy--expecting "voters" as a bloc to agree with you rather than admitting the possiblity that in a room full of 50 people there might be 25 or more opinions.
Recently, I heard Kulongoski's campaign manager speak to a Democratic meeting--arrived about the time Jim Hill finished speaking, and saw how popular he was with the home town crowd, also had the experience of people telling him why they were disapointed in Gov. Ted. And yet, after admitting he was speaking to a room of people who had probably had known Ted Kulongoski a lot longer than he had, proceeded to tell us that Gov. Kulongoski was doing "what the people wanted him to do". HUH?? What people?
And such remarks risk jokes like "my friends and I must not be people if we question Kulongoski's actions as Governor".
Sometimes it happens that a measure gets turned in and doesn't have enough signatures. Could be it wasn't a popular idea. Or that signature gatherers were sloppy. In either case, it is the responsibility of the petitioners to get enough signatures, not those who disagree being responsible for displeasing the petitioners.
Mar 1, '06
Jenni - Voters speak when they vote on an issue on a ballot. They spoke on the iTAX, M47 and PUDs whether or not I like it.
When you put this spin of they didn't sign a petition, so they didnt speak is too big-brotherish. I am not asking for every issue to be voted on, but this is a philosophical change in the way elections are run. It seems the city council went out of their way to keep it from the voters - especially at a time when we are looking for every penny to keep schools open.
10:20 a.m.
Mar 1, '06
Steve--the money used for VOE wouldn't ever go to "heeping schools open" in the first place.
Jim--it's not an "experiment." It's a process that's proven its worth in the other places it's being used.
10:45 a.m.
Mar 1, '06
The City Council doesn't refer 99%+ of the decisions they make to the voters. They do their job instead. As a voter I hope I do get a chance to vote on VOE but I'm glad to have a chance to see how it works here before I do.
I'm gleeful about the current failure and I'm not going to apologize for it. It's like The Three Stooges only much, much funnier. The conflation of the voters and big money interests by our right-wing pals here only adds to the amusement.
Had it been a real grassroots campaign that had failed, that would have been different. The main reason to want to refer this to voters now rather than after we get a chance to see it work is not to save the money the first few years will cost, it's that later we'll have real data and the typical right-wing big money misinformation campaign will be a lot less likely to be effective.
Mar 1, '06
Torridjoe, its true it has been used other places, but here, in Oregon, and Portland, VOE is an "experiment". Also, torridjoe, the money comes from the general fund, which at the present time, city leaders ARE proposing to use for schools.
10:55 a.m.
Mar 1, '06
one of the biggest problems in Oregon right now is that if our elected officials do something that 1 single person does not like, and that person has the means to do so, they can get the issue on the ballot by paying enough money and they can be victorious by spending even more money. this is not democracy. this is the purchasing of electoral results, and this time around G&G wasted their money. the system worked.
beyond that, and the reason i refuse to sign almost any initiative petitions any more, is i'm tired of this monday morning quarterbacking. why the hell do we have elections if we refuse to let our elected officials work? M37 happened because too many legislators were looking over their shoulders, afraid that no matter what they did, one group or another would run to the initiative process. that feared-based inactivity led to M37, a truly bad law, and now if the 2007 Leg has the guts to tackle this dog, it'll be back on the ballot again.
and it's not like we have a bunch of constitutional and legal geniuses writing these things, either. there are not grand conventions of citizens gathering to debate the issues and craft initiatives that declare the Will of the People. what we get are a bunch of self-serving putzes who are throwing spanners into the works as if that's democratic. the ability to dupe the public is not democracy. working with elected officials is a part of democracy, and if the problem is that this is difficult, then that's what we should be fixing. like, say, with campaign finance reform. something like, um, Voter-owned Elections.
Mar 1, '06
Jim:
Please let us know how much of the City General Fund went to schools in the last year or two. I was under the impression it was $0.00, but I may be mistaken.
Mar 1, '06
Doretta, those opposing VOE are not all "right-wing". Ginni Burdick is far from right wing. She is one of the most liberal state senators in the Oregon Legislature.
Its a common malady, but why do people so underestimate the voters to make good decisions, so able to be "duped" in the election process.
Mar 1, '06
Bert Lowry, I believe the city has used general funds in the past, but maybe not in the last two years. What I did say is "city leaders are PROPOSING to use for schools" general funds.
Mar 1, '06
"If you feel the City Council has overstepped their authority with Voter Required Subsidies (or "VRS" as I prefer to call VOE), you are welcome to vote against all incumbents as they run for reelection."
Good, another supporter of Amanda Fritz!
BTW W. Bruce, did you collect the 1000 signatures you promised to over on Jack's Blog?
Someone will have to explain to me why the Portland City Council could not have included a sunset in the ordinance. That would have required a future council to pass it again and/or refer it to the ballot if they wanted it to continue. Instead, we are hearing the promise of a future vote from people who have no absolutely no authority to make that promise and no right to try to constrain those we elect who will have that authority in the future.
If this works it makes no sense at all to give those who want to reinject money into the political process the opportunity to do it without having to collect the signatures. They tried, they failed, thats it. If the proponents of voter owned elections want to fulfill their promise of a vote, they can go collect the signatures to put it on the ballot.
Mar 1, '06
Gosh, this is such bad PR for PR firm Gard&Gerber. They need something to deflect the public's interest, perhaps a hunting accident. Ya, that's the ticket.
Eric, I'd stay out of the woods for a while if I were you.
Mar 1, '06
jim, Doretta didn't claim that all opponents of VOE are right-wing, or even that all the VOE opponents on BlueOregon are; she said that those right-wingers who post here conflate the voters and big money interests.
Mar 1, '06
"Do you really believe there are no busy voters who think they elect officials to study and deal with such issues?"
Actually, that's exactly what most of us voters expect in this republic we live in. We elect representatives to manage public affairs, because the economy would grind to a halt if all anyone did was study at sufficient depth to truly understand, and then vote on, every hare-brained scheme the basement-dwelling policy-wonks, P.R. firms, lobbyists, and occasional sane citizen activist dreams up. Anyone needing a little refresher on this fundamental political concept should re-take Civics 101 (calling Ginny Burdick ... please peel yourself away from PGE/Enron, and report to class?)
Like most voters in the few states which allow ballot measures, I am sick and tired of P.R. firms (Gard & Gerber) and political parasites (Sizemore, Eyman, and their filthy ilk) driving their revenue streams by provoking, then running (at a profit), endless ballot measure campaigns on any issue they feel will grab public attention. To call what Burdick, Sizemore, Eyman, and all are doing "democracy" is a sick joke.
Ballot measure requirements should be raised so high that the only measures which could possibly qualify would be the only ones that should: those so important -- and so with such massive popular support -- that they can't wait for the next election round, when the offending bastard(s) can be voted out of office. Anything short of that should be dealt with by the legislature. Period.
BM's ... what an appropriate acronym.
Mar 1, '06
Wait a minute! There is a Gregoire/Rove playbook!? AWESOME!!! Where can I find one of those!? I looked at Powell's and they didn't have it.
Seriously, how sweet would that be?
Mar 1, '06
Ironically, the City of Portland is in the same place that San Diego was in the late 80's.
Plenty of ambitious projects on the drawing boards. Public employee benefits that trump most private employers, a ballooning unfunded pension liability (Fire and Police Departments), and no way to balance the budget without new sources of revenue.
Does it keep them from expanding the scope and reach of City Government? Heck no.
Build a floating boardwalk! How about a Tram? Condomania!
2% for Public Art! Taxpayer funded political campaigns! Join the City Council and TRAVEL THE GLOBE!
Sidewalk construction in existing neighboorhoods? Can't afford it (and BORING). Improve existing "sand & gravel" streets? Not unless the neighborhood forms a Local Improvement District (LID), or there's some train track (read "Free Federal Money") involved.
Build a shelter of last resort for the homeless or victims of domestic violence? So sorry: you'll need to find a private charity, or just ride Tri-Met during daylight hours.
We lack 911 operators, police officers, jail beds, and drug treatment centers. We have too many planners, consultants, and bureaucrats, and NOT ONE OF THEM is going to reduce the backlog of unmet or crumbling infrastructure needs.
<h2>20 years from now (when Portland is in the dire straits that San Diego is today), you will wonder why we didn't see it coming.</h2>