Ya know, I don't think I've every read a conservative blog ever rip into an R; they do everything to excuse or deflect it to us. Must say something about the relative standards of integrity. Keep up the good work.

Very disappointing to see BlueOregon fall hook, line and sinker for Willy Week's spin -- borrowed from The (Bend) Bulletin, which has had a hair up its ass over SB 30 from the outset -- about Johnson's so-called "conflict of interest" on SB 30.

SB 30 has a dozen sponsors, none of whom own land near the Metolius. It has won the support of dozens of groups locally, statewide and nationwide. Its supporters have gotten literally hundreds of letters and e-mails in favor of it and a scant handful opposing it. The wesbsite noresorts.blogspot.com has posted more than 250 e-mails from all over the country supporting this legislation to protect the Metolius.

The Bulletin has set up a straw man in the person of Betsy Johnson to attack SB 30. Don't fall for it.

My involvement here only pertains to SB 30 - so I'll stick to that.

Stacey and Dartagnan have it right in that the support for SB 30 is broad-based: A dozen sponsors, numerous outdoor and conservation oriented public interest groups, the City of Sisters, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, as well as a general public - not just from Camp Sherman, but elsewhere thoughout Central Oregon, Oregon, and beyond - that overwhelmingly supports SB 30. This is not a NIMBY issue, it's not a Democrat or liberal issue, most certainly it's not a Johnson issue.

If you remove Johnson from the equation, there is still an overwhelming level of support for this bill. So whether or Johnson has done anything inappropriate (regarding SB 30, I certainly don't believe she has, and regarding unrelated matters I really have no clue) it's utterly and completely inappropriate to call SB 30 into question because of that.

To (author) Kari, I can certainly agree that this matter needs to be publicly vetted and debated, but as pertains to SB 30 I truly believe that all this talk is the product of a witch-hunt initiated by the Bulletin "and others" who just genuinely hate this bill. Why they hate it so much, I really don't know. If you ask me, that's enough to make one wonder.

Oh, and check this out: http://www.tsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1522&Itemid=153

Bend's weekly newspaper (The Source Weekly) put a new post up on its "Wandering Eye" blog this morning about how the Bulletin published a piece by a guy arguing that the Colson development would not impact the Metolius headwaters, but who neglected to mention to the readers or to the paper (so it seems) that he is a personal friend of the Colson family and has been a paid consultant for them in the past. Talk about a conflict of interest. At least Betsy Johnson declared her "potential conflict" publicly before the senate.

Red Cloud wrote,

"Ya know, I don't think I've every read a conservative blog ever rip into an R; they do everything to excuse or deflect it to us. Must say something about the relative standards of integrity."....

Obviously 'ol Red hasn't ever read RinoWatch. I've taken MANY a Republican (RINO) to the woodshed which has caused me obvious disdain from fellow party members.

RW is a true Conservative Republican with the "integrity" to never "excuse or deflect".

In the case of Democrat Sen. Johnson, let me clear in saying I admired her greatly but now am calling for her to resign. I'd feel the same way if we were discussing a Kim Thatcher, for example.....

As one of the few regular Blue Oregon readers with some level of objectivity (No Party Affiliation), I'm glad to see that you (finally) made note of this perceived transgression by one of your own. The silence was becoming deafening. Could it be that Ted Piccolo dragged you out of the closet with his blog post that made mention of your lack of reportage on the subject?

Having no previous context of SB 30 whatsoever, reading these excerpts they seemed slightly suspect. They didn't mention the environmental concerns of developing next to a river.

Seems pretty important to the context of the story. Some of this other stuff is pretty disconcerting thogh. We'll see where it goes.

OK, let's do precisely that --- let's remove Sen. Johnson from the equation by having her donate the tainted proceeds to a worthy charity---something dealing with global warming would be appropriate, since the bill promotes air travel.

If she was a Republican, we'd be outraged---well, she's not a Republican, and that's too bad, she sure acted like one in this case.

They always say "it's not about the money." OK, great, it's not about the money. Show us: donate the profits to a good cause.

The Oregonian (and the Willy Week) clearly doesn't know the whole story or, more likely, doesn't care to hear the whole story.

I'm sure they would side with the Queen of Hearts if they ever walked through the Looking Glass when she said, "First we get the verdict then we have the trial."

Shameful, lazy, shock, pathetic, so-called journalism.

Sad, just sad.

So, is this about "first the verdict, then the trial", is it about a legislator doing something which looks stupid, or is it about the Metolius River?

This isn't the first thing a legislator ever did which looked stupid.

However, having read Stacey's piece (working for a legislator who represents that area), I dimly recall something from the 1970s. The legislature had passed some sort of bill about the Metolius and perhaps about development. After Sine Die it was discovered there was some sort of glitch in the wording, causing an unintended consequence. The result was a one day special session to fix the wording.

One of the strengths of blogs is supposed to be people reading something like the above paragraph and doing further research, even if the topic is too old/obscure to be online and requires old fashioned library research.

This doesn't sound like Duke Cunningham, it sounds like someone who could have benefited from the new training efforts the Ethics Comm. (or whatever they call it now) plans to do with a larger budget and more staff.

Wait a minute, how do you get:

This doesn't sound like Duke Cunningham, it sounds like someone who could have benefited from the new training efforts the Ethics Comm. (or whatever they call it now) plans to do with a larger budget and more staff.

out of

Johnson, D-Scappoose, failed to disclose her ownership and sale of the farmland at the time, as state law requires. "I readily admit I made a mistake," Johnson told The Oregonian in an interview at the Capitol. "I am culpable."

?

The land sale was in 2004 and the rule was in place then. She admits it was a mistake. So what the hell does this have to do with new training and staff for the Ethics board? What do we need with more training and staff for an Ethics board if someone doing what she did simply gets to say "oops" and pay a fee that's equivalent to a parking ticket?

If she wants to show that it was a mistake and not a Duke Cunningham/Abromoff deal, then she should give up the extra proceeds, beg forgiveness from all Oregonians, and start recusing herself from votes on things that benefit her and her husband.

... Unfortunately, that's not constitutional in Oregon. All legislators who are present on the floor, they must vote. You literally cannot abstain, you can merely declare a conflict of interest ...

There's a simple way around this - when a bill comes up for which a legislator has a conflict, just leave the floor for the vote - its a little cumbersome, but if you really care, you leave and don't vote. We should expect more from our elected representatives - Republican or Democrat.

Legislating the issues one knows from ones daily life is not new. Prosecuters work on crime. Teachers work on education. Farmers work on agriculture.

Just becauae she's a rural pilot you can't fault her for having an interest in hobby airfield access.

Just because she thinks the Metolious is beautiful doesn't mean she can't help preserve it.

It's easy to see the mud.

It always important to look at what's underneath.

And always more important to take a look at the mudslinger.

"Legislating the issues one knows from ones daily life is not new. Prosecuters work on crime. Teachers work on education. Farmers work on agriculture."

Someone clearly doesn't seem to get the essential difference between a legislator as a representative of the people and the roles in our society of the other professions. But then, that view is representative of THE problem in this state and on this blog where a lot of folks are clueless enough to believe campaign contributions are THE ethics issue, and campaign finance reform being THE ethics reform we need? I don't see a campaign finance issue being the overweening issue at the core of the unethical behavior here --- and there is clearly egregious unethical behavior here --- does anyone else?

If Johnson wants to pursue her private economic and her mix of anti-development and pro-development causes, she should quit the Legislator and go for it. The fact she hasn't, and all that follows from that, is the unethical behavior.

THE ethics problem in Oregon is that a lot of the people we elect, and many of the folks who run this blog, have the mistaken belief that a citizen Legislature is the place they go to selfishly get things done for them and people like them. For the most part these are the most mundane of selfish things, and that is true from what I've seen across the political spectrum. This is most true in the battle between nutty anti-development and nutty pro-development advocates.

The inherent corruptness of the belief reached the point of absurdity recently when the politically appointed Government Standards and Practices Commission slammed their own professional GSPC staff and outright refused to sanction Potter for the Blazers' ticket affair. He undisputably broke the gift ban law. Rather than carry out their obligations under the law, the political appointees on the GSPC corruptly violated the law themselves and endorsed Potter's argument, which in fact was that such corruption by our elected leaders actually is OK if the goal is to benefit interests and people with which they agree.

Other than Johnson's technical violations of Legislature rules by failing to disclose or recuse, if you are one of those people who approved of what Potter did, and the GSPC failure to uphold the law, on what basis do you disapprove of what Johnson has done? Or do you approve of what Johnson has done --- at least if she hadn't gotten caught --- because her pattern of acting in her self-interest actually furthered interests you like such as SB 30?

In one of those funny coincidences I had this last comment about ethics problems and the citizen legislature ready to go with the name "Observer". I had not noticed somebody had also used the name "Observer". Please be clear that there was no intent to mislead or confuse, it was just an oversight. So that previous post should be from "Observer2".

I am not that familiar with the legislation in question ( will learn more about it and then blog about the whole issue on Blue Dog Oregon ) but I think, as others have written, that it's important to separate Johnson's behavior from the bill.

Regardless of the merits or demerits of the bill, Johnson's behavior clearly was wrong, and she's admitted as much herself. WW can hardly be accused of doing a "smear job" by reporting on behavior she herself admits was wrong.

Seems to me we've got two issues here.

The first is the airport deal.

The Metolius is another story. SB 30 is a good bill. The Metolius story ought to be follow up on by Willyweek or someone. The connections with Colson (may his soul find an appropriate repose) would make for an interesting investigation. Colson, his elder-care homes (that he dispossessed his late self of) and his expansion into resorts and shopping centers has a good investigative story line.

Jeff's comment about one's orientation expresses the sentiment of my earlier post.

"that it's important to separate Johnson's behavior from the bill."

Very true. However, that doesn't mean the only case is that Johnson's behavior was unacceptable and the bill is good.

However, it may be the case that both Johnson's behavior was unacceptable and the bill represents a lot of collective bad behavior in terms of a lot of people viewing and using the Legislature as the place to get things done for them and people like them. (I'm not expressing any judgement on SB 30 here --- which on the surface sounds reasonable if those whose various economic and non-economic personal interests are benefitted most bear the burden most --- only commenting on the proposition.)

I'm betting that's the hard thing for people here to grasp who believe their Federal/State representatives are supposed to be their mouthpieces, rather than tempering agents whose job description actually is their oath to uphold the Federal/State Constitution. That job description is that they are sworn to uphold the common good. And that frequently should include telling constituents and interests they most identify with that what those constituents want is not really in the broadest public interest. True political leadership is achieving a better overall result that doesn't give any of the diverse selfish interests across the political spectrum in our state what they want to the inequitable expense of others.

Very disappointing to see BlueOregon fall hook, line and sinker for Willy Week's spin..

On the contrary, it’s nice to see some objectivity from a “progressive” website that normally can’t bend over and grab its ankles quick enough anytime a Democratic Party issue or candidate walks by! Even if they were several days behind the curve.

Here’s a tip of the hat to KC and the other cyber-Fuhrers at BO. Keep up the good work.

The non-disclosure of her land sale followed by SB680 to raise the value of that land was not a "mistake." What fumes me is that she refuses to admit wrongdoing, and that the governor is publicly defending corruption because it's by a member of his own party. We must not defend corruption in our party, we have to attack it as ruthlessly as we would corruption by anyone, else we just sully our own reputations.

"The connections with Colson (may his soul find an appropriate repose) would make for an interesting investigation."

Amen, brother (or sister). But since Ponderosa Land & Cattle Co. LLC is not a publicly traded corporation it would take some Seymour Hersh-caliber investigative reporting to find out who the investors are.

Red Cloud, On what planet did you get the impression a conservative blog never rips into an R? Especially when it is so extremely wrong. I really want to know how such a veiwpoint forms. What's more is your claim is very true right on on BlueOregon. I'm surprised Kari didn't label this thread, "First Democrat Legistator in Oregon history has ethical lapse" "excuse or deflect it to us" ????
Red Cloud, where do you get this crap? How about just one example of any excusing or deflecting by a Consevative blog? Your imaginary world says something about your standards.

If Ms. Johnson is the "smartest, all powerful" legislator, I suggest she should be held to the same standards as her constituency. Because, as the "smartest, all powerful" legislator, one can expect she would have a greater. understanding of the law and should have known she was not following the rules, imho. It is not an unreasonable expectation to anticipate even more diligence in FOLLOWING the law from all lawmakers. It really is that simple. Who amongst anyone here would be so lucky to "get off" with an "ooops and a semi-sincere apology"? I'm sick and tired of lawmakers holding the public they serve to a higher standard than they hold themselves.

Betsy Johnson is a Dem in name only... a "pro-business Dem" well "pro-her-business Dem."

Before coming to the Senate she was the Vice President of Legislative Affairs for the Oregon Pilot's Association (read high placed lobbyist.)

She is still lobbying, and with great success it appears, for a select group of people with an expensive hobby. Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could have the state defray the costs of our past times.

There's a simple way around this - when a bill comes up for which a legislator has a conflict, just leave the floor for the vote - its a little cumbersome, but if you *really* care, you leave and don't vote. On many issues where the votes are close, legislators may request a "call" which means that, unless excused, they must be present and vote--basically it's a roll call first and then a vote. SB 30 was voted on under a "call of the Senate."

Well, that's easy then--the Senate is in charge of excused absences, yes? I mean, a lot of Senators miss a lot of votes for this and that. So whenever someone has a conflict, they request an excused absence for the vote and leave the floor when the vote is called.

Let's stop pretending that elected officials don't have a choice about not voting on matters where they have a conflict of interest. They do.

Well, Cayote and Dave, you may be right.

The reason I guess I don't spend much time at such sites is that most of the "dialogue" there is in the form of the foaming rants you display here. Sometimes your guys are so bad even you have to jetison them. The other reason I don't spend much time at such sites has to do with the spinning and deflecting that goes on. At least here I can find out why commentators think the way they do.

The articles are intended to engage and show an intellectual depth and an ability to respond to the evidence rather than forcing the evidence to respond to the preconceptions. I find myself far more often here thinking, "oh, I hadn't thought of it in that way," which I really don't find elsewhere. I'd rather be engaged than trashed.

So, I guess my original posting reflected a bias of mine toward substance rather than spiel.

Well, Cayote and Dave, you may be right.

The reason I guess I don't spend much time at such sites is that most of the "dialogue" there is in the form of the foaming rants you display here. Sometimes your guys are so bad even you have to jetison them. The other reason I don't spend much time at such sites has to do with the spinning and deflecting that goes on. At least here I can find out why commentators think the way they do.

The articles are intended to engage and show an intellectual depth and an ability to respond to the evidence rather than forcing the evidence to respond to the preconceptions. I find myself far more often here thinking, "oh, I hadn't thought of it in that way," which I really don't find elsewhere. I'd rather be engaged than trashed.

So, I guess my original posting reflected a bias of mine toward substance rather than spiel.

Kari -- I look forward to the day when you delay comment for two days on a front-page, above-the-fold Oregonian article about the ethical lapse of a GOP legislator. At that point your excuse that you were busy will hold some weight.

As for being "required" to vote on bills where you have a conflict of interest, why haven't the Dems put forward a bill to change this (or referred a constitutional amendment if that is required)? Why haven't liberal bloggers insisted that we change this before now? Insiders have known about this bizarre "requirement" forever, and the only reason for not changing it when we took over is that the Democratic leadership thought they might somehow benefit.

Corruption has no place in our party, and we must speak twice as loud against it when it is discovered.

OK, let's do precisely that --- let's remove Sen. Johnson from the equation by having her donate the tainted proceeds to a worthy charity---something dealing with global warming would be appropriate, since the bill promotes air travel.

Johnson's SB 807 is yet another giveaway to the aviation industry. The Port of Portland has been trying to shove general aviation out of PDX and onto the smaller airports like Hillsboro. Hillsboro is more interested in corporate and air cargo than GA so they're trying to shove it out to the rural airports. Mike Applebee (Apple Valley Airport) and Tom Stark (Starks Twin Oaks) along with others only see $$$ signs and are all for it. They figure that the country bumbkins can barely organize a turkey shoot, that there will be little opposition. That's not necessarily so as seen by the group NAAVE's efforts to stop the expansion. Washington county hearings officer Dale Herman and LUBA have both denied the Apple Valley expansion. Albeit on a technicality (The activities that occured in 1996). Betsy Johnson was helpful in providing information to assist in stopping it although it might seem that she only wanted to squelch the competition (helicopters). I believe that if she were to become govenor, that aviation interests would have a hay-day with tax breaks and funding. The skys would be filled with rich boy's toys and the back yard bar-b-que will become a thing of the past.