I thought Blue Oregon's policy was that it had to be an original primary work to be a guest column. If I knew I could be a contributor and simply crosspost stuff from my own blog, I'd have signed up a while ago.

Are you really questioning whether the Merkleys filed any paperwork with the school? Is that a denial? Or just obfuscation? If you want to debate whether the application to a charter school is meaningful, that's worth discussing. But Canter's already admitted they showed interest, did he not?

This article, going up pretty late and in the wake of a positive Novick story, seems to lack its own beef IMO.

Argh. Yes, that is our policy. Kevin didn't tell me he was going to cross-post over at PK.

This post was submitted and published much earlier this evening, but I future-posted it for a few hours later explicitly so it wouldn't immediately stomp on the Novick post.

I'll leave the discussion as to the content to others.

It was an original primary work when submitted. I'd missed that requirement when I submitted it, though, and posted it to my blog several hours later. My bad! Nevertheless, the other version has been deleted, leaving this as the sole one in existance.

Are you really questioning whether the Merkleys filed any paperwork with the school?

The question is whether there is more than Rob Kremer's word for it that there was an alleged application filed. Beth Slovic claims that's what happened, but apparently single-sourced it with just Rob Kremer.

But Canter's already admitted they showed interest, did he not?

Expressing interest/curiosity is not the same thing as filing an application. If it were then I'd be the proud, but very broke, owner of a whole fleet of new cars that I've seen on car lots in just the last month.

Until there is a second source revealed to clearly show that Kremer's statement is absolutely accurate this is a non-news column. Those familiar with Kremer's tactics (the OEA) will take the column and the source with a huge grain of salt.

Paulie, given the timing (impending OEA endorsement meeting) and the fact that Beth Slovic apparently shopped this around with at least a few local teachers (members of OEA) as her editorial makes plain, I disagree that it's a non-news column. Slovic's pieces appear to be aimed at influencing the primary election by influencing a major endorsement, all while seemingly masquerading as an impartial journalist. We wouldn't tolerate that from FOX News. Why should we tolerate it from Willy Week?

It's particularly noteworthy in light of what Kremer said on his blog when Novick announced for the Senate race.

Is it? Kremer said that Novick didn't have a chance against Smith in the piece you reference, and he calls him a socialist.

Are you trying to imply that the GOP is attacking Merkley through the GOP house organ Willamette Week in order to get Novick elected in the primary so Smith can crush him, ha, ha, ha, ha?

Do you think Kremer has some sort of special prognostication skills that can determine the outcome of the elections?

For all you know the GOP really is more scared of Novick and just hasn't told you and is hoping for a reaction along the lines of "WW and Novick are colluding with the GOP!!!!!"

Of course, that would require a bit more subtlety than the GOP (or the Democrats) have really shown in recent years.

Is this the same Beth Slovic who wrote the trenchant piece of investigative journalism that used Photoshop to experiement what Jeff Merkley would look like with a Jon Tester flattop?

Honestly, the WW being what it is, it's not clear to me Novick gains anything by their biases for him. My guess is 90% of its readers grab it for the concert schedules and to laugh at its personals and escort service ads. Nothing to worry about.

Interesting discussion. I just wrote a post on my blog responding to some points.

For the record, I have no axe to grind with either Merkley or Novick, other than to oppose either of them in the general election.

And as I say on my blog - Merkley is not necessarily being hypocritical by applying to enroll his kids in a charter school. If he now supports charters, there is no hypocrisy.

Only if he still opposes them is it hypocritical. As far as I know, he hasn't answered that question, and until he does, I would have to assume his actions do his talking for him, and he supports charter schools as currently established in Oregon law.

Now, is it newsworthy that the Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, running for the U.S. Senate, a one-time opponent of charter schools, now supports them?

I think Willamette Week think so.

Hey Rob, how about producing a copy of the alleged application? I notice in your post that you avoid that issue entirely. Surely that wouldn't be because it doesn't exist... right?

JHL, I don't disagree. But here's the thing... massive pixels have been used up by progressives all across this nation complaining about Faux News' "journalistic ethics." Don't we become part of the problem rather than part of the solution if we turn a blind eye to apparently similar examples elsewhere? Maybe you've never complained about Faux News. But I have and many thousands of others have too. As progressives, I'd like to believe that our own ethical standards are higher than our counterparts on the Right. N'est pas? Or is Nader more or less right in his criticisms of both parties?

Either "TJ Have You No Shame" is Kevin indulging in more sockpuppetry, or they simply regurgitate Kevin's arguments--but I'm a little confused. WHERE have I commented on this story at all, much less "embrace" it? I mean, WTF?

I commented on the meta portion (why Kevin's contribution was accepted--and remains here, in violation of BlueO policy), and I commented on the concept that the Merkleys filing paperwork is in question...given that the campaign doesn't deny it:

A spokesman for the Merkley campaign, Matt Canter, did not deny Merkley and his wife Mary Sorteberg submitted a charter school application on behalf of their son.

Talk about diverting the conversation! The MSM raises a point about Merkley in one of its stories which the campaign doesn't deny, a Merkley supporter abuses the privilege of using BlueO for a guest column (which BlueO ed staff approved despite there not being much of any relevancy within)--and suddenly it becomes torridjoe pushing a story against Merkley? Don't you think it's a little odd that of ALL the bad news coming out for him the last couple weeks, this story would be the ONE ITEM I didn't write about at LO?

I've also never heard the argument before, that the GOP's ability to find lots of things to criticize Merkley on is a POSITIVE thing for Jeff. As for ignoring Novick, his primary opponent has tried the same strategy for much of the last six months...but seems to have given that up this week as well. Welcome to the primary, Jeff!

Yes, yes, whom to believe: The decades old Pulitzer Prize winning alternative weekly newspaper, or the guy who sits in his garage all day making those oh-so-soothing rain sticks.

Nigel Jaquiss won a Pulitzer Prize. Beth Slovic has been a lousy journalist since well before this story was published.

This whole story is just dumb. God forbid that Merkley should be a responsible father and look into all the options for the future success of his child.

It's rather clear that teachers unions hate charter schools, as do most advocates of a strong public school system. So, there you have it.

Teachers unions do not hate charter schools, that's just more right-wing nonsense. As long-time President of the national AFT, the late Al Shanker initiated the idea for charter schools in 1988 and set off a movement that has spread to 25 states. What AFT disagrees with is siphoning off scarce public school dollars for private charter schools set up basically to keep these schools non-union. It's a union-busting tactic pure and simple.

Albert Shanker introduced the notion of charter schools to the nation in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Shanker saw the creation of charter schools as a boon to improved education for all students. These schools would be created by groups of teachers, or parents with teachers, who wanted to develop a new curriculum or teaching strategies to improve both instruction and student learning. The groups would petition the district for the opportunity to bring this about. The school board would grant authority to groups of teachers to carry out particular innovations for a limited period—three to five years—and the goals, objectives, and responsibilities of both the district and the teachers would be articulated in the charter. Program monitoring and evaluation would be core elements of the charter school program, and renewal of the charter would be dependent on the information developed through such evaluations. Over time, the successes of these charters would set in motion a "cycle of curriculum improvement and renewal" and would influence the manner in which educational services were delivered to all students in the district.

If implemented properly, charter schools not only could increase parental choice, free teachers and administrators from bureaucratic red tape and encourage innovation, but they also could add value by increasing student achievement by at least as much as was expected in the traditional school setting. Since that 1988 speech, charter schools, albeit of a very different kind, have become a part of the education landscape, supported by state and federal legislation. Today, more than 2,100 schools, serving over 500,000 students, are operating in 37 states and the District of Columbia. In many instances, the original notion of teachers as innovators and education entrepreneurs to advance learning has been transformed into a rhetoric of reform by choice and competition—with improved student achievement taking a back seat to parental and student satisfaction.

The only comprehensive report available to the public that uses the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to compare student achievement in charter schools with achievement in other public schools. In that report, NAEP results are reported exactly as they would be in an official NAEP report, including all data qualifications used by NAEP regarding statistical significance and data reporting standards. In addition to the 2005 NAEP student achievement results, the report also includes 2003 NAEP findings. In one area, the 2003 results appear to differ from a recently released, federally funded study by Sarah and Chris Lubienski at the University of Illinois, which analyzed public, private and charter school student achievement using the 2003 NAEP math scores.1 For eighth-grade math in 2003, the study reports a five scale score point advantage for public schools, but it was not statistically significant. The Lubienski study found a 0.5 scale score point advantage for charter school eighth-graders over public school eighth-graders, which grew to a 2.4 scale score point advantage after controlling for demographics and location, although neither difference was statistically significant. Our results appear to differ because the Lubienski study weights each school equally and small charter schools scored higher; when the results are reported for students rather than schools, as we do, public schools have the same five-point advantage.

Another analysis reported some findings identical to those in the study, but in a selective manner. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, using the NAEP Data Explorer (the same data source used in the report), presented only a few comparisons between charter and other public schools.2 The conclusions they drew are not consistent with NAEP reporting standards. According to the Alliance: Fourth graders attending charter schools are making notable strides in math and particularly in reading. African-American, Latino, and low-income charter students registered larger reading gains than their fourth-grade peers in non-charter public schools. As the study shows, charter school students in 2005, on average, scored the same or lower in almost every comparison with public school students. Math scores for both charter and other public schools rose from 2003 to 2005 by approximately the same amount. In reading, the increase in average charter school scores between 2003 and 2005 was larger than the public school increase over the same period, but the average charter school score was lower than in other public schools. It is important to note that “gains” or “increases” do not refer to the progress of individual schools or students. One sample of schools and students in 2005 is compared to another sample of schools and students in 2003. Consequently, the statistical significance is crucial in determining real change. The change in charter school scores overall, for low-income students in math and for racial/ethnic groups in both subjects, are not statistically significant.3 The change in reading from 2003 to 2005 for low-income students is the only statistically significant change for charter schools.

Teachers unions do not hate charter schools, that's just more right-wing nonsense. As long-time President of the national AFT, the late Al Shanker initiated the idea for charter schools in 1988 and set off a movement that has spread to 25 states. What AFT disagrees with is siphoning off scarce public school dollars for private charter schools set up basically to keep these schools non-union. It's a union-busting tactic pure and simple.

Thank you, Mark! That is the crux here.

Even if Merkley had sent his kid to a charter school or even a private parochial school like the ones I attended growing up, it would be utterly irrelevant to whether and to what degree he has supported both public school funding and public employee unions like the AFT.

UPO sez: "It's sad if we have to replace a Senator beholden to right-wing special interests with a Senator beholden to left-wing special interests."

I believe there are other choices on the ballot, Overload, both in the Dems primary and a certain Non-affiliated fellow.

Hmmmm.... It seems to me that Rob Kremer may have violated Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). When I worked at Lewis & Clark College, the FERPA rules were drilled into our heads over and over.

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31): * School officials with legitimate educational interest; * Other schools to which a student is transferring; * Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes; * Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student; * Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school; * Accrediting organizations; * To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena; * Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and * State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

Merkley's application is public info.

No, student applications are NOT public information. Seriously, call up the U of O and ask to see a kid's college application -- they'll laugh at you.

Without knowing the particulars of what exactly was released, it's hard to know whether there's a FERPA violation or not.

If I was Rob Kremer, I'd just be thanking my lucky stars that it's generally considered a poor campaign strategy to go around suing people.

FERPA is very, very strict. Football coaches, for example, can't even describe a player's injury without consent from that player. Some "directory information" can be released without consent (but with notice), and this may fall under that - but usually applications are well inside FERPA.

When I worked at the college, we'd often say, "Really? We can't even say X under the FERPA rules? That's ridiculous!" Very, very strict.

Given how non-intuitive the FERPA rules are, I wouldn't be surprised that a political hack like Kremer might accidentally stumble into a FERPA violation when trying to screw with a candidate.

I just realized that I haven't disclosed on this post yet. My company built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak here only for myself.

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record.

How does this apply to the Merkley child? He was not a student of the school, and as far as I can tell no information from his "education record" was released (only that the record existed). The form itself is not an education record, although transcript or other academic info on it certainly might be.

If all that's holding back the lawsuit is the potential for the Merkley campaign to engage in poor strategy, I'd still be worried if I were Kremer. :)

Not releasing health information such the athletic injury example would be under HPPA just as much as FERPA, I'd think.

Posted by: Timmy | Feb 29, 2008 1:06:14 PM I don't think Kremer did anything other than tell WW that Merkley had applied to the school. How he came to know this I don't know, but the sequence was: -Kremer tells Nigel -some months later WW asks Merkley campaign, they confirm.

What leads you to believe that they confirmed anything?

Think about this for a minute. Beth Slovic said (twice!) that Matt Cantor "did not deny" the allegation. Without a direct quote it's hard to say what she bases that assertion on. But let's assume that Cantor declined to give an answer at all and Slovic interpreted that to be "did not deny," which would technically be true.

Since when does a refusal to answer equal confirmation? It doesn't and never has... anywhere outside of dictatorships. There are very good reasons why our legal system makes the opposite assumption with a refusal to answer. It's because it's the only FAIR conclussion a refusal to answer will logically support.

I'm not saying Cantor refused to answer. I really don't know what he said because Slovic didn't quote any of it. But her assertion that his "did not deny" equals a confirmation is not morally, ethically, legally or logically tenable.

"Sometimes the best way to make a non-story into a story is to protest too loudly."

...for instance, by writing a column about it on the state's largest political blog. :)

Kevin --

"Right wing talk show 'Kremer & Abrams?'" Have you ever listened? Last time I noticed, it was a left v. right talk show on a right wing station. But hey, what do I know? I'm only "& Abrams."

I can attest that BlueOregon contributor (and former DPO chair) Marc Abrams is definitely not right-wing.

Miles: The whole "Beth Slovic only had one source so it's probably not true" schtick is just weird.

You may not have any use or respect for journalistic ethical standards, in which case you're probably fine with what Faux News spews on a regular basis.

Some of us have an ethical compass and we're no more prepared to surrender it to you than we are to Dick Cheney.

What leads you to believe that they confirmed anything? Think about this for a minute. Beth Slovic said (twice!) that Matt Cantor "did not deny" the allegation.

She also said the Merkley campaign CONFIRMED it. Where did she say that? In direct response to YOU, in the first link you cite above:

Kevin, if your mother told you she loved you, I would question that. Kremer told me something. I asked the Merkley campaign. His spokesman confirmed it. Funny how that works.

??

Oh...and it's CantEr, with an E.

It's the same thing we saw when I diaried over at LoadedO about Merkley's non-support of same sex civil marriage, or certain tax reforms. He PERSONALLY explained his positions to me, and his supporters spent days screeching that I was wrong, or lying, or whatever. Or even (my favorite -- thanks Jeff Alworth!) that I hadn't told him I was going to write a blog diary about it and therefore I was somehow in the wrong.

The whole time neither he personally, nor anyone representing his campaign, came forward and said I made a single mistake.

Seriously. Dudes, own his record and run on it. It is what it is. So he tried to get his kid into a charter school? It's a fact! Deal with it. You have rationalized far worse things already in this campaign.

Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 1:39:48 PM

She also said the Merkley campaign CONFIRMED it.

Great! Then she shouldn't have any problem backing it up. Neither of her pieces even approach backing it up.

Talk is cheap. Some talk the talk and some walk the walk. So far Beth Slovic's walk is limited to one conservative source who may have violated the law in divulging what he did. Of course if no application exists then he'd not be guilty of breaking any laws because no confidentiality was breeched.

Either way, Beth Slovic clearing this up by substantiating her allegations would be appropriate and welcome.

Hello?!!

She also said the Merkley campaign CONFIRMED it. Great! Then she shouldn't have any problem backing it up. Neither of her pieces even approach backing it up.

His campaign CONFIRMED IT. It's a DONE DEAL. NEXT?!

There's no denying I'm biased, so I'll just preface my comment with that. I just don't like how WW depended on one source for the story, and that source happened to be a right winger. WW used a right wing source to try and put a bad light on a progressive candidate right before a major endorsement. It comes off pretty bad IMO.

I don't think the actual story of whether Merkley considered sending one of his kids to a charter school is really the issue. Like other posters have already mentioned, if Merkley was working in the legislature to divert funds from public schools to charter schools that would be another thing. Merkley is not doing that, in fact he worked to pass the rainy day fund for public schools.

So far Beth Slovic's walk is limited to one conservative source who may have violated the law in divulging what he did.

I shouldn't bother, but...she has in fact TWO sources for this information: Rob Kremer...and Jeff Merkley. I'd say that last one is a pretty ironclad source.

Here's the "beef" Kevin.

Slovick has redacted copies of the applications for both (?) of Jeff Merkley's children for the Arthur Academy charter school.

"Charter-gate?" Seems a little melodramatic for a two-post exchange, but anywho...

You can obtain charter school applications through public information requests? Really? Does that mean I could make information requests regarding every application in the school?

What's next... are we going to check whether Jeff and Mary used eco-friendly diapers back in the day? Or how about whether they once drove their kids to school in an SUV once or twice? Or, heck, why not ask them about about every other mickey mouse topic you can think of in an attempt to uncover mountains (or mole-hills).

The "one source" defense is bogus. By far, the finest journalism the world has known comes from personal accounts of reporters who actually see things happening. The next tier of that is a close-to-the-action source, which is generally a whistleblower who approaches a journalist alone. Now this is obviously no Watergate and a total nonissue, but don't try to call Ms. Slovic's journalistic integrity into question because she didn't go calling other parties involved.....oh wait, she did. She called the Merkley campaign and they confirmed it.

State Senator Rick Metsger offered a little pearl last night at the UO College Democrats meeting (a great visit) that seems relevant: in running for office, stand up for your beliefs and people will respect you. Even if they disagree, they'll respect that you are steady in your convictions. He pointed to the fact that he's in a red district, yet continues to be sent to Salem because his constituents know he fights for what he believes in.

I like Speaker Merkley a great deal, but I wish his campaign would be more forthright when these issues arise. If he thinks charter schools have merit, I'd like to hear why. I don't really care for one of his supporters complaining about how unfair it is to call him out on that, and using (gasp!) just one source! He's running for federal office. He is a public figure. The rules on privacy and respect for his personal space are out the window. Just ask Derrick Kitts.

Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 29, 2008 1:31:13 PM

Um apps are covered by FERPA so you cant call and ask where I applied to college or where I got in.

What's an um app?

app = application. Sorry thought that was self explanatory.

Let me get this straight. A single sourced story in WW (a newspaper, not Gospel) turns out to have as its source Rob Kremer, who said on his own blog something about OCPP being "socialist". But we should believe what he says because he is Rob Kremer? There may or may not be a document for all to see. This may or may not have violated school application privacy laws. The statement of the Merkley spokesman may or may not "confirm" what Kremer told the WW reporter. And this is a reason to support Novick for US Senate because..........?

Nope, you haven't gotten it straight yet. The story was sourced and CONFIRMED by the campaign. We shouldn't believe it because it's Rob Kremer; we should believe it because the Merkleys have admitted it's true. The statement ofthe Merkley spokesman DOES in fact confirm what Kremer said; that's why they call it a confirmation.

There IS a document--two of them, in fact--for all to see. Whether it violated application laws is up for question, although it seems odd that the school would release them if they thought it violated any. (Bdunn's unsubstantiated assertion that it covers applications notwithstanding).

What does this have to do with Steve Novick, exactly? Where is he mentioned in the story?

True, but he is a moderate. For progressives isn't that almost as bad?

Uhhhh.... No. At least, not for this progressive.

Rick Santorum (R-PA): Much worse than Ben Nelson (D-NE).

Which isn't to say that Ben Nelson isn't worse than, say, Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

But the world isn't black and white.

Just to clear things up for those wanting to see the forms, wondering how WW got them, etc., here's the text straight from the story:

On Friday, Canter slightly altered his story, saying that Merkley's wife cannot recall whether the form she signed was an expression of interest, or an actual application. WWire subsequently learned that on Wednesday, two days before this last statement, the charter school in question emailed to Merkley's lawyer copies of the charter school applications not just for Merkley's son, but for the couple's daughter as well. Through a public information request to Arthur Academy charter school, WWire obtained copies of the applications, which are now posted online here and here with some information blacked out so as not to identify Merkley's children nor the family's phone number.

Go here and you can get to the links to both applications.

It's always the coverup.

At what point does a pattern of misstatements become ... an ethics problem?

Steve would be better for Oregonians in the US Senate than Jeff Merkley because.........you can trust what he says. LT, are you even following along? The applications are ONLINE. They exist. You can see them.

LT,

looks like campaign supporters trying to blacken the opposition rather than stating the positive case for their own candidate.

Funny you should say that.

My candidate's criticisms of his opponent have been based entirely on ideological and political distinctions between the two candidates. He has not once made an attack or even a criticism of Jeff Merkley's character.

Yet my candidate has been on the receiving end of a stream of trumped-up and bogus attacks on his own character -- attempts to "blacken" him, to use your word. Is it somehow wrong for me, as a supporter, to observe that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones?

Stephanie V wrote.... Yet my candidate has been on the receiving end of a stream of trumped-up and bogus attacks on his own character

Really? Can you name and source one?

Because from where I sit (admittedly a biased place), I can't recall a single attack, bogus or otherwise, on Steve Novick's own character. His staff, maybe. But not Steve himself.

At least, not from the Merkley campaign or anybody closely associated with it.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 29, 2008 11:42:44 PM My candidate's criticisms of his opponent have been based entirely on ideological and political distinctions between the two candidates.

If that's true then Steve Novick must be a conservative Republican because they're the ones who floated the HR2 attack. There is zero evidence, from the day of the vote until it was first brought up last Fall, that Novick had any problem with Merkley's handling of HR2 until AFTER the RPO floated their attack.

Yet my candidate has been on the receiving end of a stream of trumped-up and bogus attacks on his own character

That's just more of the same revisionist history you keep regurgitating.

Nobody made Novick cooperate with the RPO in attacking Merkley on HR2.

Nobody made Novick keep quiet while a senior member of his own staff explicitly declined to practice that most basic of political ethics - full disclosure.

Nobody prevented Novick from himself covering his senior staffer's ethical lapse at that meeting. He observed the entire thing, afterall.

Small wonder that his staff would reflect his own ethics - attempting to game an endorsement... altering his opponent's Wiki page.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Feb 29, 2008 2:15:15 PM It's the same thing we saw when I diaried over at LoadedO about Merkley's non-support of same sex civil marriage, or certain tax reforms. He PERSONALLY explained his positions to me, and his supporters spent days screeching that I was wrong, or lying, or whatever.

I've personally spoken to someone who was there during that conversation. And he says that you misrepresented what Jeff Merkley said. Since you both have stunningly obvious biases, there is no rational reason why anyone should take either claim without a few grains of salt. So we have to appeal to the objective public record. And it shows that Jeff Merkley has consistently supported FULLY EQUAL rights for the LGBT community. There is not a single example of Merkley not supporting fully equal rights. Period.

Posted by: Steve | Feb 29, 2008 7:09:50 PM Funny thread. WW has the actual applications posted. Rendering all of the challenges pretty silly.

Not really. The point of the challenges was to get Ms. Slovic to practice at least minimal journalistic ethics. She was late doing so and it appears that she only scrambled to do so AFTER she was challenged. But late is better than not at all.

Of course that only applies to her factual allegations. It doesn't address her transparent attempt to influence the upcoming OEA endorsement. When coupled with previous pieces she's published at Willy Weak, it's pretty clear that at least part of her motivation is to help Steve Novick. That would be above and beyond the usual "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality that passes for journalistic ethics these days. Except that here she was personally trying to draw blood that didn't exist... just in time to try to influence an important endorsement.

So-o-o-o-o-o,

Once upon a time in America, a couple of middle class mothers are discussing the pros and cons of the myriad options that either might consider for their children's education.

One lady tells the other, "Hey, why don't we check out school X, it's only a few blocks away."

When they get to the school, they are informed that they need to fill out a few lines on a questionaire in order to get the tour.

They do. They get the tour. Nothing further occurs.

A long time political opponent of this lady's husband decides to make hay out of it, and gets a local paper to run a story which attemtpts to vilify his nemesis.

Other political opponents predictably jump onboard and and predictable Hijinks ensue.

This is the 80th comment on this non-story.

Rock on!

This is the 80th comment on this non-story.

It was a non-story, maybe--before they started covering up like they had something to hide (which I guess they did; they had both kids applied). I don't find Canter behaving honestly here--or you have to blame the Merkleys for not cluing him in and leaving him out there, one of the two...but somebody was holding out and now they're holding the bag.

Checking out a charter school may not have given very many teachers pause at all, I generally agreed. Checking it out and--then denying and covering your actions which turned out to be more involved--may seem like guilty behavior to some, yeah. And all because of...Kevin? The WW's response headline was "Here's the beef," clearly in response to this column (or PK's, I'm not sure which). Would this story maybe have gone away otherwise?

I can't see many teachers being impressed with Ms. Slovic's attempt to influence their choice. Afterall, Merkley and his wife overtly chose to send both of their kids to public schools. And legislatively Jeff has been one of, if not THE, strongest allies they've had.

On the other hand, when Steve Novick was the Legislative Coordinator for the Oregon Department of Education, he helped convince the Republican dominated legislature to curb individual district's ability to deny Charter School applications. The net effect of that was to hamstring the OEA's efforts.

Did Beth Slovic deem that relevant info to publish just days before the OEA would meet to choose whom to endorse?

And didn't the ODE (while Novick was a senior member) meekly roll over when BushCo foisted NCLB upon America instead of joining other states in sueing to stop it?

I've personally spoken to someone who was there during that conversation. And he says that you misrepresented what Jeff Merkley said. Since you both have stunningly obvious biases, there is no rational reason why anyone should take either claim without a few grains of salt. So we have to appeal to the objective public record. And it shows that Jeff Merkley has consistently supported FULLY EQUAL rights for the LGBT community. There is not a single example of Merkley not supporting fully equal rights. Period.

Kevin, I'm sure you'll understand that we can't exactly take your word for that. If I really got it wrong, the campaign would have so stated publicly by now, not just whispered in your ear about it.

The only other person who was there during the conversation was Jeff Merkley. Jon Isaacs showed up at the end, as I wrote. So Jon, with all due respect, has no actual knowledge of 95% OF what was said, and Jeff Merkley has been honorable enough to not try to evade his words.

In short, either the person who said that to you was mistaken, or lying, or you are.

When they get to the school, they are informed that they need to fill out a few lines on a questionaire in order to get the tour.

I've been on many private tours of schools when we were looking for a private pre-k. Sometimes I had to fill out a questionnaire, sometimes I didn't. But never did I have to fill out an enrollment form. Those are saved for after you've decided you indeed do want to apply for your child to go there.

But never did I have to fill out an enrollment form. Those are saved for after you've decided you indeed do want to apply for your child to go there.

How many of them used a mandated lottery system in the case of too many applicants? I was educated in the private school system and we moved frequently when I was elementary age, attending four separate schools from grade 1 through 8. Preschool was at a fifth (public) school. None of them used a lottery. But if they had used a lottery and there had been multiple school choices facing my parents then I'm sure they would have filled something out just to keep their options open until they decided on a school.

I don't know about you but I am inundated on a weekly basis with forms to be signed for this and that school-related activity or after school activity - my youngest daughter is a highschool Freshman this year. The "application" forms Willy Week has pics of don't have a place for a signiture, which detracts from the alleged point of the form, in my view. I've always had to sign stuff to get my daughter into a new school. Which is why it's often referred to as "signing up" for school. Otherwise any old stranger could fill out applications for your kids or mine to attend schools without our knowledge. N'est pas?

Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 1, 2008 11:12:32 PM

If I really got it wrong, the campaign would have so stated publicly by now, not just whispered in your ear about it.

Really? Stephanie Vard is such an influential figure that a major candidate for the United States Senate would be compelled to officially rebutt her claims? Claims published on a blog listed as an official endorsing organization on his opponent's website? And rebutt them "publicly" no less? Really?

Hey Kevin, Steve --

I know this isn't the main string here, but since you guys think I'm a "right winger" or a "moderate," I'd love to know what you base that on. I consider myself well left of liberal, and take such positions weekly on this area's more conservative station. My last post, calling for fiscal responsibility, is not contrary to being left of center. In fact, unless we embrace the fact that government is responsible, we can't make the case for governent. Anyhow, if you really have any interest in my real views, feel free to write me.

Posted by: Marc Abrams | Mar 2, 2008 8:31:13 AM

It took me a while to figure out what you are talking about, Marc. But then I scrolled up through the thread and I saw your earlier comment which I'd missed before.

To answer your question, I don't consider you a right-winger. I don't listen to KEX, but I did see you referenced as a liberal or something along those lines when I was tracking down info for this post. However, multiple sources characterized it as being Rob's show (with you being his sidekick) in which case your ideology wouldn't be relevant to whether the show as a whole is right, left or middle. Hannity and Colmes is generally regarded as a right-wing show even though Colmes isn't a winger. Same, same. No offense was intended towards you in any way.

But if they had used a lottery and there had been multiple school choices facing my parents then I'm sure they would have filled something out just to keep their options open until they decided on a school.

That's right. When I came across a school with limited openings I liked, I filled out the paperwork. And that's because I was seriously considering sending my daughter there. But I didn't fill out applications to schools that I had no plans to send my daughter to, regardless of whether or not there was a lotto system or waiting list.

If you take the time to fill out the forms, then it's because you want your child to go there. It may end up being you find a school you like even better, but you considered it seriously enough to fill out the application.

Their initial enrollment form does not require a signature. You can actually do it online now. Once your child is accepted (through lottery system or whatever), you have a whole host of paperwork that has to be filled out, which does indeed include parent signatures (as well as immunization records, doctor contact forms, people authorized to pick up your child, etc.).

This is the same process I went through when putting my daughter into a pre-k program.

Kevin--

None taken, though I prefer to think of Rob as MY sidekick...

LOL - Marc, I think I can safely say that a lot of Oregonians would probably prefer it that way.

If you take the time to fill out the forms, then it's because you want your child to go there. It may end up being you find a school you like even better, but you considered it seriously enough to fill out the application.

Why would you bother even looking at any other schools if you want your child to go to the first one? That doesn't make sense...

It makes a great deal more sense to me, as a single-parent who has been through this, that if one checked out a new school and was informed upfront that there might be a lottery to get in... that one would want to at least fill out the paperwork just to be on the safe side. My dad used to do hard sales briefly (between teaching jobs) and it turned out he had a real gift for it (think Kirby vacuum cleaners!). And he always says that the people who said "no" upfront were the most likely to end up buying. I've got a couple friends who do sales for a living and they confirm the veracity of that dynamic.

It's like test driving a new car. Just because you test drive a car doesn't mean you necessarily want to buy it. You don't test drive cars that you positively do not like. But lots of people test drive numerous cars before settling on one. Heck, lots of people test drive new cars just for kicks without even being interested in buying one. I've got friends like that. Of course I know at least one guy who is the polar opposite. He's bought three new cars in the last three or four months, trading in the previous one each time. But then again, he's got obsessive/compulsive disorder... ;-)

Go Kevin go! Can you keep this story alive all the way until the OEA vote?

Pat... you're right! Ha! I had completely forgotten about the Greenlick/Nolan post. Thanks.

(I'm going to blame sleep deprivation - our little guy got the same stomach virus this week that's shutting down schools throughout the metro area.)

Of course, what Stephanie V wrote was... Yet my candidate has been on the receiving end of a stream of trumped-up and bogus attacks on his own character

There was that one Greenlick/Nolan. Any other data points to add to the "stream"?

Thank you, Kari. I'll be back with a fuller response. But first, I'd like to take a moment to call out and enjoy the stunning admission that you just made:

When Steve Novick criticized Jeff Merkley's legislative record (e.g. his vote for HR2), Jeff Merkley's campaign responded with an attack on Steve Novick's character.

Right out of the blocks.

It was obvious to a lot of the rest of us what was going on, but it's great to see that a campaign spokesperson has finally admitted it.

Hey Stephanie --

I'm a little confused by your bolded quote there. I'm pretty sure that's not anything I've ever written.

Maybe it's not intended as a quote. If so, OK, but it shouldn't be attributed as a "stunning admission" by me.

For the record, I do not believe that the Greenlick/Nolan post was a "trumped-up and bogus attacks on [Novick's] own character". I'm willing in acknowledge, however, that Novick fans think it might be.

I'm still waiting to hear what y'all even consider attacks on Novick's character. Before I offer a rebuttal, I want to see what the charge is.

In any case, just to set the record straight: I am NOT a Merkley campaign spokesperson. I am not authorized to speak for the Merkley campaign, and I do not do so. Every time I write here, I make it clear: I speak only for myself. My opinions are my own.

(Briefly, for a couple of days around the kickoff tour, I filled in for an absent campaign employee by posting photos and few comments on the campaign blog - but otherwise, nope.)

(My brother, as a baby on the changing table, engaged in projectile sh##ing. I will say no more about that.)

As for whether or not you are a "campaign spokesperson," Kari, I will take you at your word that you are not one at present. But you are a paid member of the campaign team, and the larger point still holds: the Merkley campaign responded to political criticism with an attack on character.

As for that subject -- I want to begin by saying that in my view political disagreement is always OK, and that's not what I'm talking about. This is a campaign and it's important for the voters to be able to make an informed choice between the candidates. So any discussion (including robust criticism) of political views, ideology, issues positions, etc. is exactly what the campaign is for.

It's also OK to talk about a candidate's record or qualifications. Kevin Kamberg and Bradley Dunn and others have observed over and over that Steve has never held elective office, and that's a fact, and fair game for discussion. TJ, I, and others have repeatedly abominated Jeff's vote for HR2, and while most of Jeff's supporters disagree with us, it's a legislative vote and in my view it is OK to criticize it.

I think Charlie Ringo may have gone a little too far in his dismissal of Steve's qualifications during the debate negotiations, but I say that mostly because his remarks seemed to be gratuitously nasty. I consider his words to be in the nature of a personal attack more than any serious assessment of Steve's qualifications or likelihood of prevailing in the primary.

Attacks on a candidate's character come in different forms. Some are direct (like the Greenlick-Nolan post). Some are harder to understand, like Kevin Kamberg's assault on Steve as somehow unfit for office because he does not own a house, or because he had some kind words for Hillary Clinton in his endorsement of Barack Obama (sorry I don't have a link for that first one, but Kevin's blog is really hard to navigate). Others attack proxies (like Liz Kimmerly or Henry Kraemer) in poorly disguised attacks on the character of the principal. Each of those that originate in a BlueO post or a post on another blog (I confess I don't bother to visit and inventory the content in most of the pro-Merkley echo chamber) can launch a new mini-stream of character assassination. The front page alone of Kevin's blog at this moment probably contains a half dozen attacks on Steve's character. If you really want those attacks inventoried and catalogued in a single public forum, where it becomes clear what the coordinated effort to smear Steve looks like ... I'll be very surprised.

(and now that I'm back from Kevin's blog, I am going to go and take a shower)

All excellent thoughts. But Kevin Kamberg isn't a representative of the Merkley campaign.

I had asked if there was any of that stuff coming from the Merkley campaign itself, or people closely associated with it. (Some random blogger doesn't count.)

Well, Kevin Kamberg certainly seems to be closely associated with the Merkley campaign, because he was one of the chosen vessels for that weird little tidbit of "oppo research" that the Merkley campaign dropped on Steve last week (the 10 year old LTE mentioning Ralph Nader, perhaps you recall it).

I guess I'll have to scale down ignoring Kevin from 95% of the time down to 85% or so, in case I miss him making another lame mistake that relates to me personally.

First of all, Kevin, if you are going to make a big deal of calling me out by my name, get my name right. I have said this to you before and you have persisted in the error, so clearly you're ignoring me at least an equal percentage of the time. But if I was consistently calling you Kevin Kam or Kevin Karma or some other weird abbreviated version of your name, you'd have a right to be annoyed. That's what you're doing to me. So cut it out.

But more interestingly, I see a pattern here. I make a political criticism, and you attack my character by calling me a liar. Sounds familiar!

Jeff Mapes confirmed half of what I originally reported about Jeff's views-- the half related to tax fairness -- so perhaps I am not quite such an unreliable source as you are, or as you claim that I am. With regard to marriage equality, all you have to do is look at the candidates' websites to see what's what. Jeff doesn't even have a link on his site for civil rights. It seems he feels that domestic partnerships have closed that chapter and we can all relax now. Novick's site has an extensive section devoted to civil rights, including equal access to civil marriage. This is all 100% consistent with what Jeff said to me and what I reported.

If I got it wrong, prove it. If you don't, it's because you can't. Full stop. The End.

As for your comments, LT, I'm just a friend and supporter of Steve's. Kari does get paid by the Merkley campaign, but I actually give money to Steve's campaign, instead of vice versa. I do think it is reasonable to attribute comments by a paid campaign operative to the campaign. But Kari's status isn't the issue.

Here is what I said:

My candidate's criticisms of his opponent have been based entirely on ideological and political distinctions between the two candidates. He has not once made an attack or even a criticism of Jeff Merkley's character. Yet my candidate has been on the receiving end of a stream of trumped-up and bogus attacks on his own character -- attempts to "blacken" him, to use your word. Is it somehow wrong for me, as a supporter, to observe that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones?

Kari tried to turn that into an assertion about attacks by those affiliated with or close to the campaign, but that wasn't my original point, although many of the attacks I talked about did originate either with the Merkley campaign or its plausible deniability blogger network. Charlie Ringo and Kari are two good examples. Also, if the Merkley campaign is using Bradley Dunn and Kevin Kamberg as outlets for its opposition research, at what point do they begin to count as "close enough?"

Let me ask you a related question, LT: you've seen TJ, me, and others make robust criticisms of Jeff Merkley's candidacy here and elsewhere. Some of those criticisms have obviously offended you. But have any of them been attacks on his character?

There's a double standard operating here and someone has to call it out.

As for whatever you have the right to say, LT, by all means go for it. You have the right to say whatever you want. I have never asserted otherwise. Please tell me what "assertions without fact" I have made, and I will back them up. While you're at it, please tell me what that has to do with the number of Oregon campaigns I've been involved with, because I do not see the connection.

he was one of the chosen vessels for that weird little tidbit of "oppo research"

Tipping off a blogger on some research doesn't make that blogger a campaign spokesperson - any more than tipping off a reporter on some research makes that reporter a campaign spokesperson.

I am NOT a Merkley campaign spokesperson. I am not authorized to speak for the Merkley campaign, and I do not do so.

Horsecrap, Kari, you've been a campaign spokeperson on at least two separate occassions--the kickoff, and with the PDA situation. Quit misleading people.