This is faster enforcement action than violations by Tom Delay under the private money campaign finance system that nudged him out of office.

The statement from the city begins:

Portland City Auditor Gary Blackmer expressed satisfaction with the 12 indictments against Vladimir Golovan for theft, forgery, and other charges. Golovan committed these acts under contract to qualify candidates for public campaign financing. "I am pleased that the Grand Jury delivered these indictments. This demonstrates that the new public financing system will catch people who don't follow the rules, and they will face severe consequences," Blackmer said

“This demonstrates that the new public financing system will catch people who don't follow the rules, and they will face severe consequences"

Nice try Gary. All this proves is what an abysmally bad idea Taxpayer Funded Campaigns is and that we need to drive a stake through its heart as soon as possible.

Does anyone really think the city is going to see a dime of the $90K Emilie Boyles owes the city after hoodwinking them via this failed system? Or this same kind of robbery won’t happen in the future?

The worst part is our city official’s stubborn inability to admit how wrong they were to force this on the taxpayers and their refusal to immediately rectify the situation.

Vlad was gathering signatures using the same protocol for another candidate (I can't remember her name), but she was disqualified on purely technical grounds.

Disqualification has no bearing on the underlying fraud/forgery charges. Does it seem reasonable that the candidates who submitted the forged signatures (and opted in to the "clean money" system) haven't been charged with a crime.

It speaks to the importance of having a fall guy if you want to game the VOE system. And make sure you don't have any assets they can sieze.

I would like to point out, once again, that the system did not uncover this fraud. Boyle's signatures flew right through the auditor's office without question. No elected official or person in authority questioned the signatures, the $5.00 donations or the issuance of the funds to Boyles.

It was only Anna Griffin's investigative reporting that brought this whole matter to light. Were it not for that, Boyles would have collected and spent the entire amount without question.

In my view that does not show that the system is transparent or that people will be held accountable. What it does show is that Auditor Blackmer, who co-authored the public financing ordinance, was completely incompetent when it came to implementing this system. He can make all the statements he wants to about how this shows the system works, but he dropped the ball.

So, do those badmouthing Portland's Voter Owned Election system believe that the system is poorly designed, or do they believe that someone other than the voters should own the election system?

Just wondering.

Tom,

How about we let people vote on it to find out once and for all?

My reading of the ordinance is that upon reviewing the signatures on the qualifying contribution forms and seeing signatures that seemed to have been written by the same person, thus raising questions about their validity, the auditor could have not certified Emilie Boyles, leaving her the option of appealing that decision and proving that the signatures were valid. In other words Blackmer could (and I think should) have been more diligent in his review and operated from a position of "I am the safeguard of this system, something looks goofy and prove to me that it is OK before getting certified."

At the same time the Citizens Campaign Commission is reviewing all of the procedures to see where additional safeguards can be added.

Too bad the anti-VOE petitioners were unable to gather signatures from unregistered voter, foreign nationals, and minors.

Kind of weird that a repeal petition would be held to a higher standard than public funding of private political campaigns. Given the lack of historical precedent for using tax dollars to advance local political aspirations.

I’m not confident that some facts will enrich these discussions but here goes: Portland’s system is based upon the Arizona and Maine public campaign financing systems. They do not verify signatures. My office cannot choose to disqualify candidates without a reason established in the rules. The Citizen Campaign Commission is currently reviewing all the rules to address the situations we encountered this first time.

As to the questionable signatures, many were from Slavic immigrants whose native language is written in Cyrillic. We found signatures in cursive Cyrillic alphabet, cursive Latin alphabet, or printed Latin alphabet. I don’t think every newcomer will become immediately proficient in speaking and writing in our expected styles. Even if we could test signatures, my office did not have access to a bona fide signature for comparison purposes (such as the Voter rolls).

The Oregonian found a half-dozen questionable signatures, among over 1000, but a month after Emilie Boyles qualified. The rules give my office 10 days to make a determination and we do not have the resources to hire translators and contact individuals named on the contribution forms to verify they really did so, like the Oregonian did.

I’m not writing this as an excuse for the actions or inactions of my office. I’ll take responsibility for the problems, but readers should also keep in mind that we have taken assertive steps to solve them. The qualifying rules are being rewritten, wrongful actions are being prosecuted, and we are seeking the return of spent campaign funds, penalties, and interest from a candidate who should not have qualified.

Despite these frustrations, I still think this system is more accountable to the public than the $600,000 campaigns for commissioner of the old campaign system, financed by special interests.

"Does anyone really think the city is going to see a dime of the $90K Emilie Boyles owes the city after hoodwinking them via this failed system? Or this same kind of robbery won’t happen in the future?"

Isn't it true that Ms. Boyles actually did return a large chunk of these funds, leaving something like $40-$50K owed?

Nice try Gary. You co-authored the system. Did you figure verifiable signatures were not important?

If you hadn't run unopposed you would probably have had Golovan working for you.

TorridJoe:

I believe that Boyle's CNE's would not have been held to close scrutiny were it not for the O's report on her signature gathering.

I continue to be amazed that people such as you, who insist VOE puts the "ownership" of the elections in the hands of the voters, refuse to support the idea of the "owners" having a vote on it.

IF IT'S VOTER OWNED ELECTIONS, THEN LET THE OWNERS VOTE.

Despite these frustrations, I still think this system is more accountable to the public than the $600,000 campaigns for commissioner of the old campaign system, financed by special interests.

That’s it, when all else fails trot out the old nameless, faceless, “special interest” bogeyman as a way to justify lousy public policy like VOE.

This is an example of a public servant so wedded to a pet project that they just can’t swallow their pride and admit it has failed in practice. If he thinks this is a better system, that’s all that matters.

It’s obvious that no amount of abuses will convince Mr. Blackmer that VOE needs to be trashed or, at the very least, put to a vote of the people.

Gary Blackmer: Despite these frustrations, I still think this system is more accountable to the public than the $600,000 campaigns for commissioner of the old campaign system, financed by special interests. JK: Yeah, and you forgot to mention the very best feature of it:

it almost guaranteed that an incumbent cannot be defeated since it usually requires outspending to unseat a sitting candidate.

Worked like a champ for Sten. Probably will work for you if needed.

Why not do the same for ballot measures - I have a whole slew that I’d like to see on an equal spending footing with the entrenched interests.

Thanks JK

C'mon Kari. Running for an open seat is an entirely different animal than running against an incumbent. Don't insult the politically astute.

Francesconi doesn't prove anything about the power of incumbency (he wasn't the incumbnet)...To the contrary, Francesconi proves that poor community/cop relations and a tin ear are too formidable even for a $1 million advertising blitz.

VOE reinforces the status quo: incumbents continue to get reelected in the primary without having to spend as much money. Erik and/or Sams will run for Mayor without digging into their personal checking accounts (or kissing Homer's A$$)...And VOE supporters can hoist the PROGRESSIVE flag and talk about how uniquely democratic and inclusive Portland is becoming. Sheeples.

Torrid:

You're right. It was a cheap shot and I apologize to auditor Blackme I condede that he would not have stooped to such lows as Boyles were he challenged in his race. I have met Auditor Blackmer and, although we do not agree on this issue, he is an honorable man who is true to his beliefs.

I can only attribute my short fuse to the fact that I am now seven weeks into breaking a cigarette smoking habit that I have had for the last 33 years.

My criticism of VOE continues to be this:

How is it right that the Portland City Council takes it upon themselves to fundamentally change the way we conduct elections in Portland without a vote of the people?

I do not like eliitist thinking. To me this position on VOE smacks of elitist thinking.

Even Commisioner Erik Sten has publicly said that the auditor's office dropped the ball on the Boyle's signatures. He and Blackmr co-authored the ordinance.

It is disingenous to say that, because not enough people signed a petition to put this to a vote, a vote is not required.

If it were put to a vote it would be voted down.

I will close with a simple question:

Does anyone reading this blog really think that a sitting city commisioner would support a resolution that made it more difficult for him or her to be re-elected?

If you do, I have some beachfront property in Arizona that I would like to talk to you about.

Dave: good on ya' for apologizing. And congrats on quitting. Now if we could get Sam/Randy/Tom/Erik/Dan to apologize for the Tram, 2% for Art, infrastructure neglect, and politicking like Fairy Fedmother transporation dollars are manna from heaven, then all will be forgiven.

There are two urge resisiting "smoking cessation" (not nicotine replacement) drugs on the market. One of them is called Zyban/Buproprion; the other (newer one) is called Chantix/varenicline tartrate: both of them have demonstrated twice the success rate compared to The Patch.

Now if you will only register as a Greenie or a Democrat, you might have a snowball's chance of getting elected in MultCo before you die. You've got a much better chance than Mister Tee ever will: I enjoy the cheap shots.

Uh, Mister Tee, run your own experiment: register as a Democrat or Greenie and then run for office espousing your usual libertarian orthodoxy. I kinda think it's not going to be too successful.

And BTW, Kari Chisholm's allusion to "Mayor" Francesconi seems bang on the mark. The power structure in Portland lined up behind Francesconi the way they would have for an incumbent.

As for voter-owned elections, I want to vote on it, and frankly I couldn't tell you today how I'd vote, although I'd lean towards "no" unless some changes were made to secure the system against more Boyles/Golovan-type shenanigans.

In Portland's form of government, the City Commissioners function as both Legislators and Executives. Given this concentration of power, the body politic should be consulted when legislation is considered that will enhance the power and/or longevity of the Executive Branch.

For example, if we had managed to impose term limits on Portland's City Commissioners, but they voted to overturn said term limits, most observers would understand the Executive powers benefitted from the Legislative fiat.

When public servants vote themselves a new entitlement (public funds for private expenses), the people should be given a chance to approve or reject that new entitlement.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[W]ith VOE...the standards for indicating support and maintaining propriety in expenditures are high. The status of "clean candidate" is the result of a covenant, not an entitlement.

Regrettably, I have to disagree, and I enthusiastically supported VOE initially. If the City does not do something serious to avert another Boyles/Golovan fiasco, I will sign an initiative to repeal the system and vote for repeal.

If progressives want to promote voter-owned elections, then they've got to do their damnedest to assure the system's integrity. Just saying that the alternative to VOE is "developer-owned elections" is IMHO simply inadequate.

T.J.

This is very simple: I'll type slowly.

Pre-VOE, candidates for political office spent their own money, or they solicited contributions from friends, family, and supporters.

Post-VOE, qualified candidates for political office are provided with taxpayer dollars to fund their campaign.

Previously, no taxpayer dollars funded these campaigns. Post VOE implementation, taxpayer dollars fund campaigns, including the reelection campaign of the Grand Dragon himself.

TELL THEM WHAT THEY'VE WON, BOB: A ciy commissioner is compensated in the low six-figures (including bennies), plus all the expense account/travel budget they can get away with.

WHY SHOULD WE SPEND TAX DOLLARS TO HELP A PRIVATE CITIZEN OBTAIN A SIX-FIGURE COMPENSATION PACKAGE?

VOE stinks to high heaven: if the Republican Congress had voted in the EXACT SAME rules and regulations for themselves, you'd all be dyspeptic and bug-eyed.. So much for intellectual honesty.

It's worth noting that WE ARE THE ONLY MUNICIPALITY IN THE COUNTRY THAT DIDN'T PUT A VOE PROPOSAL ON THE BALLOT.

Torrid:

How can you say there's no evidence that VOE benefits the incumbents? Two incumbents were on the ballot, both of them won. BIG TIME. Only two challengers "qualified" for funding, and they each had limited name recognition, but were constrained by the VOE ordinance from raising the money necessary to increase their name recognition.

In the primary election, three candidates qualified for $145k in VOE funding:

1. Emilie Boyles: submitted fraudulent signature, was not prosecuted, moved to Montana.

2. Amanda Fritz: campaigned tirelessly, spent her money wisely, says she wouldn't have been willing to participate without VOE. Still lost to the ghost incumbent (did anybody see Dan campaigning?).

3. Erik Sten: incumbent City Commissioner and mayoral hopeful, he was a principal author of the VOE ordinance, and the only sitting commissioner who DID NOT recuse himself from participation; spent $145k; got to spend more time with family. He won.

In the general election, no candidates qualified for VOE funds. Why? Because there was no general election: both of the INCUMBENTS WON IN THE PRIMARY, which is 100% success rate for incumbents, 100% failure rate for VOE challengers.

Oh, I almost forgot: VOE candidate number 4 committed the same signature fraud as Emilie Boyles, but she was disqualified on a minor technicality. Never prosecuted.

From my vantage point, VOE was a miserable failure: 50% of the participants committed fraud, and the only winning recipient was the incumbent/author of the ordinance.

There's something rotten in Denmark.

Have some more KOOL-AID Joe!

Have you tried the Jim Jones retro flavor: it's called 'COMPANY MAN'? It's organic and shade tree grown and was hand harvested by orange faced Oooompa-Looompas.

Don't worry about them, dear: they're just resting their eyes...

Incumbents are just better candidates: that's why they win reelection 99% of the time. Nothing wrong with winning in the primary. Nothing wrong with Sten voting to put $145k of tax dollars INTO HIS OWN REELECTION. If it weren't for that infusion of Clean Money, he might have been compelled to build another tram or subsidize another Yuppie Ghetto.

Thanks to all for the encouragement on my kicking my smoking habit. I am, in fact, on welbutrin and it does work (at least for me) much better than a nicotine replacement therapy. I am now at 52 days. The nicotine is out of my system, and I intend to keep it that way.

Sorry for the off topic post.