It wont be Sten, it will be Adams. I'd bet a shiny quarter on it.

Potter is a lousy, lousy, lousy mayor. He can't even get the police thing straight. Sheesh. He's a Vic Atiyeh politician. Popular by default, not because he is good at what he does.

Good thing Jack Bog ain't the deputy in charge of burning witches, investigating commies, or certifying heavyweight champs.

Come on, man, surely your brain can invent a more creative and compelling cosmology than this. You're smart. Act like it, instead of embodying the polemicist.

It must be really painful to be a Yale law grad who can't relinquish an obsession with a single city commissioner. One might think that a person like that had flipped his noodle, replacing rational explanations with paranoid fantasies.

In that case, I agree with the premise that Tom Potter has himself to blame for the observations by journalists and others that he hasn't really accomplished anything as Mayor.

My apologies, in the context of the Blue Oregon approach, for assuming that Bogdanski has made himself a public figure, and therefore is freely subject to be recipient of the same sort of reflexive analysis that he directs toward others, on this site and others.

I would even argue that his vociferous and obsessive approach to making his opinion known compels public speech, in order to establish some balanced portrayal of public opinion.

Nonetheless, I will merrily abide by your request to lay off the man, and focus squarely on the issues.

"Please stay on topic and avoid the ad hominems."

Kari,

Fair enough. But truth be told, the person in question trades in ad hominems. See post above- rinse, repeat.

Does anyone take the WW seriously? They shouldn't. The local tobacco rag focuses on the sensational. And there isn't enough real sensation to sustain a weekly publication schedule, so they have to invent some. Their advertisers demand it.

If nothing else I appreciate Tom Potter for having run a very very ethical political campaign and for saving us all from a Francesconi Mayorship.

The Katz/Francesconi powerbloc needed to be broken in this city very badly and we got that. I agree very much with Jeff in his saying that Potter has created some breathing room for the city.

As for Jack's dislike of Leonard, Adams and Sten I have to think he's a little displaced from reality. I think that all three men, in their very own individual ways, have been, and will continue to be, very positive infuences on the city.

Sten has indeed done great things in dealing with PGE and some of the other big businesses that needed to be handed a little humble pie.

Leonard is one of the strongest most straight talking pols I've ever seen and I love it. He's definitely my favorite councilmember and has been doing great things for this city. Namely his efforts to change all of the city vehicles he has jurisdiction over to bio-diesal and so forth.

Adams is one of the nicest, most conscientious guys in politics anywhere and he also has bucketloads of charisma. The Mayor seat is his for the taking. IMVHO of course.

As for Earl running for Mayor... no way. I just don't think that Earl would give up all the seniority and influence he's built up in the House to come back and be Mayor of Portland.

I was a Potter supporter at first, but it soon became clear that he is totally overmatched by the job. Visioning (whatever the hell that is), his handling of the Chasse and Foxworth incidents, his childish outbursts, his insane pursuit of a charter change that never had a chance, his lack of doing anything that really matters to anyone who spends time in Portland. The guy is really out of touch, the only thing that saves him is that Portlanders are apathetic when it comes to their own city gov't. It's an embarassment that his approval is in the 70% range, Portlanders really need to pick up a local newspaper or read the blogs and find out what's going on in their own damn city. In conclusion, as someone who lives and works in Portland and who actually pays attention, yes it is that bad. He's terrible.

And for the record, Katz was worse but not by much and Sam Adams will be better but not by much.

Oh come on folks, get real. It wouldn't matter which one was mayor. Bog is right in "disliking most of their performances equally."

Fill in the blanks and the WW story would have been the same.

_ is a lousy, lousy, lousy mayor. He can't even get the __ straight. Sheesh. He's a Vic Atiyeh politician. Popular by default, not because he is good at what he does.

Portland governance is so beholden to the core lefty special interest groups and fringe activists that sound leadership and policy making for the city at large is impossible. Same goes for the region. Ignore it as cynical or naysaying but it's true.
The idea that a Potter or a Sten or a Bragdon will ever "figure out a regional transportation plan that won't leave commuters [and commerce] stuck in perpetual gridlock" is contrary to the objectives of the interest groups dominating the region. Forget about it.
Same goes for affordable housing and ALL other needs of growth along with crumbling infrastructure and the perpetual crisis in delivering basic services.

In his book Lydia Bailey historical fiction writer Kenneth Roberts offers this advice in evaluating generals: The very best general is intelligent and lazy. You'll probably be safe with a general who's intelligent and energetic. You may be able to survive with generals who are stupid and lazy but generals who are stupid and energetic are downright dangerous and likely to get you killed.

Vera Katz' administration (I make no comment on the lady herself) was characterized- especially in its final term- by an absence of intellect and and excess of energy. Jeff Alworth is, typically, right on the money in his evaluation: we'll look back on Potter's term(s) as a welcome period when increasingly thoughtless and frenetic activity was relieved by a thoughtful respite.

Oh, and in terms of the rest of the current council, I think we have one smart and lazy commissioner, two very bright and energetic ones, and one who fits category three. Thank the fates that we don't, at the moment, have anybody who's stupid and energetic... we dodged that bullet when Sten was re-elected.

WW has articles in it? Do people read that thing for anything other than the singles ads?

"we'll look back on Potter's term(s) as a welcome period when increasingly thoughtless and frenetic activity was relieved by a thoughtful respite."

Using your logic, a stick would make a decent mayor. No, being useless is not being good.

Portland governance is so beholden to the core lefty
special interest groups and fringe activists that
sound leadership and policy making for the city at large is impossible.

Thank goodness for that! But how could fringe political elements be so powerful? They either have lots of campaign cash, or a strong voting block/majority.

Fringe left elements? Not really known for having lots of cash-

Downtown Business Association and their cronies? Lots of cash to burn.

Above Kari's plea for us to play nicely, we were watching Jack Bog fixate on a specific elected official. My first thought was to view him as paranoid and laugh at his view of Portland's political machinations. After that, I wondered if he ever accused anybody of being fixated in their dislike of GWB.

Jack, tell me Sten's errors that rub you so wrong. And don't recycle the Water Dept. billing system. That seemed to me that he was scammed by consultants, and they should have paid a price for their poor work on the project as well as Erik taking the hit for poor management.

Using your logic, a stick would make a decent mayor. No, being useless is not being good.

Hey Chris-

I don't think I'm going to be taking logic lessons from someone who leaps so enthusiastically from a false premise to an absurd conclusion.

I never said or implied that the Mayor has been useless nor do I believe that nothing positive has been happening during his administration. Frankly, however, I'm overjoyed that for the time being the Crazy Katz Crowd - with the exception of Samadams - is in eclipse and we, as a city, have time to think before we act.

You might want to try that before your next posting.

Hi Larry,

I don't really care about your little attacks or responding to them, I'll be honest. I'm interested in the debate on Potter and what he's doing for people that live in and work in Portland - which so far has been nothing. Don't let your hate for Vera Katz, who I agree sucked, blind you from the fact that Potter is nearly as big a dud. By the time he leaves office, we could be saying he's worse than Vera.

Moniker fixed.

The WW article/editorial is right on the money. Potter has been useless as Mayor. And Jeff Alworth is wrong, a useless Mayor is not what Portland needs right now. The criticism that Hank Stern uncovers is coming from the other Commissioners and their staffs. If you have any contact with them, you know this is what they've been saying privately for at least a year. This is not about "special interest groups" being frozen out of the process (after all, the developers are still getting all they ever wanted), and this is not about "profound change" at City Hall (what, really , has changed -- except the lack of progress on key issues?).

This is about a Mayor who despises the job of being Mayor. Potter does not have a vision for the City (even after spending $1 million to create one), and he is not a good manager of the City. (Whether you liked the direction Katz was going or not, she had a very clear vision and she was very good at managing.)

Potter is disengaged from City Hall -- and that is not a good thing. The power vacuum that results from a disengaged Mayor has allowed the other four commissioners to become mini-Mayors, and the impact of this on City government has been severe. That didn't happen under Katz because she wouldn't allow it to. I believe that having four commissioners with the autonomy to explore ideas is a valuable thing, but when the Mayor is so disengaged that they kick his ass routinely on serious policy issues, that can be very detrimental.

For those of you defending Potter, what was your reaction to the part of the article where Potter could not name any policy intiatives outside of the police bureau except for visioning? For those who like Potter solely because he didn't take big checks during his campaign, what is your reaction to the fact that Potter took over $200,000 from the very special interests that you detest in order to push his charter reform proposal? For those who think Potter is doing something good for Portland, what is your reaction to the news that Potter cares much more about process than substance? Is the road that we take really more important than where we're going?

Potter will leave office in 18 months having accomplished almost nothing, and the City is worse off as a result.

So many of these comments seem to ignore the content of what the WW article said. It noted the numerous Potter insiders and friends, people who helped him get elected, who were now displeased with his performance. While I suppose you could (and most have, here) suggested that's insiders' sour grapes, that's just too broad a brushstroke to be honest.

And for those of you who dismiss the article as coming from Willamette Week, rememeber the Pulitzer for investigative journalism? I'm not talking about the O's over-hyped effort to win awards (the multi-part ATV stories recently, or their predecessor meth stories were ridiculous). I'm talking about real investigation, and I think Hank Stern's article is legitimate and interesting investigative journalism/criticism.

I'll bet you that the equivalent Oregonian reporters (working the city hall beat) would have to acknowledge the truth of the WW article, at least parts of it. But do you really think the Oregonian would ever be gutsy enough to publish it? No way. The old bumper sticker "if it matters to Oregonians, it's in the Washington Post" could be legitimately updated to: "if it matters to Portlanders, it's in Willamette Week."

Chris: "I don't care about your little attacks or responding to them"

Gimme a freaking break. I didn't attack, I responded to one. And I don't "hate Vera Katz". I don't even know the lady and will give her the benefit of believing that she did what she thought was best for the city. (I don't necessarily pass along that tolerance for many of the people she surrounded herself with.)

With the exception of Chris's posting, I'm getting some good stuff here and I'd like to say thanks, even to the people whom I think have personal axes in both hands.

Sometimes the best education you're gonna get comes from people who make you nuts when you first read their opinions. When, that is, they actually present an argument rather than a cheap shot.

A few months after Potter was sworn in I wrote a letter to him about a policy issue that I thought would help in a number of areas. Never heard a word back. Total silence! And that tells me a lot about the man and how he runs an office. I'd never vote for him again. MW

Jonathan R. sez: I'll bet you that the equivalent Oregonian reporters (working the city hall beat) would have to acknowledge the truth of the WW article, at least parts of it.

And please remember that Hank Stern was a city hall reporter for The O for something like a zillion years, and won an award or two for his reporting ... I doubt he switched for the sake of suddenly doing lower-quality journalism.

doretta sez: I think Mayor Potter has done a lot of good things for Portland and I hope he runs again.

Doretta, can you spell out some specifics?

It's my impression that the Office of Neighborhood Involvement is more effective and efficient, and less troubled by squabbling, than before he took it over, but I can't name what, in particular, he might have done to make this change.

Wait, I remembered something.

I can tell you that I was completely blown away by last year's budget process.

Tom Potter did come in with more concern about process than specific products -- part of his community policing mindset, saying it is important that neighborhoods and quirky individual voices get heard. And the rubber meets the road on that ideal in budget-making.

Last year, with every special interest in or near town pulling on the money, Potter and his staff organized the only public fora I've ever attended (and lord, but I've sat through too many of those) at which the officials present clearly listened to the public. No, really. They did. He lined up all the bureau heads, made all of them pay attention, and didn't give them any protection from citizens' coming up to them with comments afterwards, either.

And they managed the process to respect both people's need to be heard and people's need to not have to wait all night for a turn to talk. ("Do any of the people who came to comment on the Parks Bureau have things to say that the other speakers haven't touched on yet? No? Ok, moving on to Emergency Services..." I mean, seriously, it's Running A Meeting 101, it's not rocket science, but it's not something I've seen in any other citizens comment session. And it worked.) In his closing remarks, the mayor pointed out specific audience members who had detailed personal troubles with the city and dispatched the appropriate bureau head to talk to them face-to-face.

And the ending budget? Well, if I were one of those people who believe that insane, inane rule "It must be good because everybody hates it," I would assume the budget stank, because an unusually high number of people had no complaints.

Incredible (and incredibly rare, considering the not-rocket-science factor) process, successful product. I never want to vote for a mayor who wouldn't do as much.

I was disappointed when Derrick Foxworth got axed; it felt to me like injustice. But the facts I had were certainly incomplete, and it would have been obvious, glaring, horrible injustice to put that decision up to a community forum, no matter how well run.

Having two "disinterested" parties go over the budget line by line really tightened up the process, in my view. It's a lot better for the city than the way Vera did it.

I disagree. The result of Potter's budget switch is that -- as with everything else in his tenure -- there is no vision or direction in the process. Vera put together the Mayor's budget with a clear agenda in mind, then sold that budget so she could get at least three votes (and usually it was five). Potter lets the Commissioners put together his Mayor's budget for him. That makes approval easier, but since Potter has no clear vision or direction, the end result is a hodgepodge of random ideas. Look at the $20 million list of adds from this current process -- do you see anything consistent, any theme running through it? Repair city infrastructure, reform public safety, improve customer service? You can find little pieces of all of these, but nothing with enough focus that it will actually make a difference.

Portlanders like him well because he is a genuinely nice guy. Quite true. I was a huge advocate for Potter when he ran. I loved him for the low contribution cap, and I had faith that he'd bring some much-needed common sense to the position. But, it is the image of James Chasse, lying in a hog-tied heap, beaten to a pulp and dying at the feet of Portland's "finest" that I will think of first when I remember him. Second will be his reluctance to put PDC on a short leash. Very saddening.

Now there's a pretty piece of sophistry. The Pulitzer that WW won validates everything they write but the multiple Pulitzers won by The Oregonian don't even validate the articles they won them for.

Doretta: you either miss or ignore my points: 1. You can't minimize this story simply b/c it comes from WWeek, both because WWeek has shown the quality of its journalism, and because this is a good article, by a good writer. and 2. If Ryan Frank or Anna Griffin had written this story, and handed it to their Editor, do you honestly think the O would have published it? No way. It would make too many waves, and they couldn't run it as a 4-part Pulitzer application.

So for me, whether or not I think Mayor Potter is doing a good job (and there's some good there), you can't just blow off this really insightful piece.

"You can't just blow off this really insightful piece."

Since when was stating the obvious "really insightful"?

For the most part it is a story about city hall insiders/regulars and their perceptions. What isn't explored much is the fact that Potter is incredibly popular with the greater population.

So tell me about that 70%. Dupes? Just not very quick on the uptake? This seems to be implied more than a little bit.

What if this story had a different frame: why is there such a tremendous disconnect between city hall insiders and they way they typically operate with the mayor and the public at large? The slant here seems to be that Potter is the dysfunctional one. Perhaps, it's the other way around.

rememeber the Pulitzer for investigative journalism?

You mean the one about Neal Goldschimidt? That didn't really take much investigation did it? It just took a willingness to offend friends of Neal. If they had got that story about 30 years earlier when it happened, you might give them an award. But, like they did with Bob Packwood, the local media sat on that story.

The fact that WW could find some people willing to badmouth Potter is not surprising. There are always a bunch of people who have been disappointed by a newly elected official. Or who feign disappointment.

by a good writer.

That is irrelevant. The writing may be wonderful, the problem is with the story being told. And the Willamette Week can't be trusted to honestly tell a story. They are a sensational newspaper and need sensational stories to hold their advertisers. Without that attitude they would be a lousy place to sell tobacco.

I attended one of those “VisonPDX” dog and pony shows recently and came away shaking my head at our Mayor’s ability to pound $1.5 million down a rat hole and still maintain a 70% + approval rating.

Tow the p.c. line and you too, like Mayor Potter, can be an ineffectual yet beloved Portland politician. P.T. Barnum was right.

Hawthorne writes: "So tell me about that 70%. (Potter's approval rate.) Dupes? Just not very quick on the uptake? This seems to be implied more than a little bit."

I don't agree that was the implication. If you read to the end of the article you will find a quote from Nick Fish to the effect that maybe the "inside chattering classes that tend to be the sources of conventional wisdom are completely disconnected."

I thought that was an interesting quote. As the author no doubt did, too. There were several other points in the article where Potter's popularity is addressed in ways not demeaning to the general populace -- he gets out in the community more than previous mayors, etc.

And while there are things this mayor has done or not done that I have found disappointing, (the visioning process is a case in point) (it's true, he's not perfect. But then, neither am I, nor are any of us...) I'm still satisfied with my vote. And I agree with several who brought up the budget process as a plus -- and Miles, themes are for parks, particularly those owned by Disney, not for cities. The city is responsible for a multitude of "stuff" and in every budget cycle they All need be addressed. Not just the flavor du Jour... That's a pr stunt and is as useful as saying "this year I'm going to focus on paying my mortgage, next year my theme will be my water bill."

As always the proof's in the pudding. Previous admins may have made "transportation" a "theme" of their budget -- but the third-world state of so many of our roads is their legacy.

Oh yeah, someone asked what he did to make ONI so much more functional? He put the right person in charge.

and Miles, themes are for parks, particularly those owned by Disney, not for cities. The city is responsible for a multitude of "stuff" and in every budget cycle they All need be addressed.

Cute quote, Anne. But while everything needs to be addressed in some fashion, no Mayor (and no city) can focus on everything at the same time. The problem with Potter's budget process is that he's throwing a little bit of money at a lot of problems -- and failing to solve any of them.

There is a huge infrastructure maintenance problem in Portland. Potter talked about making a real effort to fix it, then dropped it when a couple of commissioners said it was "too big" to deal with this year.

Potter talked about making a real downpayment on replacement of our public safety systems (emergency communications, regional interoperability, regional training) -- things that the City has to do in the next five years and that altogether will cost $70 - $100 million. This budget contains a little bit for those projects, but he backed off when the other commissioners insisted on using the surplus for their own pet projects. Now, he plans to ask for a major bond intiative in 2008. Do you think the voters will approve a major bond initiative when they know the City frittered away the $20 million surplus?

Potter talked about building a sizable rainy-day fund for the next recession. But he backed off in the face of opposition from other commissioners. So the commissioners got their pet projects, and during the next recession the city will endure another round of cuts to core services.

Good executive leaders know that they will only be able to really make a difference on a handful of issues. They focus relentlessly on those issues and ask those around them to do the same. Potter has not done that, and the City government is drifting as a result.

I'm still satisfied with my vote.

Anne -- Can you give us some reasons why you're still satisfied with your vote? I think the point you reiterated about the disconnect between the "insiders" and the public is a good one. I'd like to understand better why anyone who has watched this Mayor for 2.5 years thinks he is doing a good job.

[As a side point, I also think the people further up on this post who criticize the views of "insiders" while praising the rest of the City Council are missing the point. Sten, Adams, Leonard, and their staffs are the "insiders" that Hank Stern interviewed for this article. It's a contradiction to say you like Potter, and also like what the rest of them are doing. The rest of them are, in Stern's words, stomping on Potter like a narc at a biker rally.]

Willamette week’s assessment of Mayor Potter appears to be fairly correct. What the article skips over is that City Hall is currently being run a muck by special interests. Instead of cultivating diversity and finding a consensus through compromise; be it developer interests, environmentalists or alternative transportation advocates; both Potter and Adams load up the citizen commissions, boards and committees they control with a one-sided stacked deck of people to promote and rubber stamp their preconceived agendas. Both Adams and Leonard routinely come up with proposals that in effect aim to exercise socialistic controls over the Portland populous. Saltzman’s new garbage proposal has some of those same overtones, however his office staff usually does do a good and better job than the other commissioners when it cones to responding to emails from the public. Sten can be at the very least commended for his desire to construct more affordable housing, especially for families. Additionally, Willamette Week had it correct when it stated; “Most Portlander’s don’t give a damn about City Hall…simply don’t care about building’s political battle de jour.” That allows developers to negotiate property tax breaks for the wealthy and receive overly sweet deals from the Portland Development Commission; and gives Adams uncontested de facto powers to dribble away scarce transportation dollars on feel good high profile PR spin projects for his followers that in reality create more congestion city wide, while at the same time sanctioning his little darling bicyclists to get away with just about anything. As for Potter? He just sits there in the Starship Captain’s (space cadet) chair and sometimes complains when he doesn’t like what a citizen says at a council meeting.

Potter's campaign was much like his "visioning" project. Unvariably, every question that went to him was side-stepped and answered with something like, "what we're really talking about is community," "community model," bringing people together." Potter always got a free pass when it came to providing specifics. He obviously wasn't spending hours each day going over budgets and policy issues or looking for precedents from other cities or from history to support his policy proposals. He didn't have any. "We need community." That's nice, Tom. We need peace on earth, too, but how are you going to get there?

Portland's predominant media did nothing to ask the hard questions and demand answers, the WW included. Think about the scrutiny that was put on Kevin Mannix to come up with specifics for all his conservative propaganda lines. As a result he was exposed for the GOP puppet he was and Kulongoski pulled away in the polls in 2006. The Portland media got the quality of candidate they screened for in the 2004 mayoral election.

Potter can still redeem himself. His heart is in the right place, but he'd better let out a rebel yell and go over the top in the last 18 months if he wants to salvage his legacy. That means confronting the police union head on and demanding certain concencessions like having officers separated and independent statements taken immediatly after events of questionable excessive force take place. He also needs to end the sweetheart deals taking place at the PDC where dozens of small businesses are being ejected from long term leases they hold without compensation so that commercial developers can cash in on expensive condo developments. He might get hung up out there on the wire, but at least he'll regain a lot of respect from early supporters for his efforts.

[As a side point, I also think the people further up on this post who criticize the views of "insiders" while praising the rest of the City Council are missing the point. Sten, Adams, Leonard, and their staffs are the "insiders" that Hank Stern interviewed for this article. It's a contradiction to say you like Potter, and also like what the rest of them are doing. The rest of them are, in Stern's words, stomping on Potter like a narc at a biker rally.]

This seems to be a basic political insider perspective that isn't shared by a lot of citizens, even politically active ones. Most people expect politician's to have ego conflicts. The fact that some members of the council are going after Potter politically has little or nothing to do with how well they are doing their jobs or how well he is doing his.

And the fact that the Willamette Week is able to find a bunch of people willing to stir up a controversy over Potter doesn't mean much of anything. Except that the WW reporter knew which "insiders" would give him the kinds of answers he needed to support his story. In fact, chances are he had the help of at least one of them in identifying the story line and finding insiders who would help move the story along.

Miles asks, why am I still satisfied with my vote for Potter?

Because I think he's done a better job than Francesconi would have done. That was our choice, so, it's really that simple.

I remember Francesconi. He always seemed to have such good intentions. But in the clinch he was consistently weaker than Potter at standing up for what he said he stood for...

If Potter says he'll stand up for something -- he does. Against common sense, sometimes, but I admire the ethic, anyway. For the last 5 years I served on the ONI Bureau Advisory Committee.(under several Commissioners, including Francesconi.) Several times I was approached to chair the committee. I never wanted to -- the committee was essentially a rubber-stamp group and I felt my role as irritated and outspoken "don't stamp on me" was more important than chairing a meaningless group -- I mean, really, who wants their name associated with such a mealy thing?... This year I am co-chairing the committee (with Doretta) because since Potter took ONI under his wing we have became a functional, supported, active, participative, oh blah blah, I'm sure you're saying -- but it has been really that good. Not perfect. I could pick holes if I wanted, but good. Productive. Collaborative, challenging.

Worth putting my time into. And, I don't do that lightly.

So. I didn't support the strong mayor stuff. I think the whole "we need to do this to stop duplication of services" was sadly disingenuous. After all, "Revenue Bureau" anyone?

But I can find stuff in any of the Mayor-presumptive’s dossiers that deserve skewering just as dearly. So I’m ok with Potter – because I work with a bureau under his control, and have found it light-years better than it’s been under the control of others. So, I give him the credit he’s due.

<h2>And, for the first time in god knows how many years, the backlog of city streets needing maintenance is actually beginning to be whittled away at. Maybe that seems like “just doing little bits”, Miles, but it is better than what was happening before him, when we had those “powerful” themes – but the backlog just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger and even the staid bureaucrats of PDOT were penning the equivalent of letters-in-a-bottle in their official communiques about the state of their bureau...</h2>