Way to go Toby!

3 strong candidates! My hat is off to those involved in the process.

May you have the open public process with the commissioners, with speeches from all the candidates in front of an audience and then a public vote, they way we had when our state senator was elected to higher office.

Clackamas County Dems have much to be proud of tonight. Kudos to DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith, Vice Chair (and Clackamas County Dem Chair) Jill Thorn, and DNC Committeeman (and "Rules Guy Extraordinaire") Wayne Kinney for making the process clear, just, and transparent.

We have three truly outstanding candidates for the Kurt's recently vacated seat. I was proud of us for carrying out the process in a fair, open manner, and am extremely proud of our slate of candidates. While the PCPs expressed their preferences, in Toby, Tom and Martha we truly do have a very strong slate to forward to the County Commission--any one of the candidates would make a terrific state senator and an excellent contender to retain the seat in 2010.

Ack. I just said 2010, didn't I? :-p

Well done, Clackamas County Dems. You rock.

Steve, the vote tally was:

TOBY FORSBERG: 20 votes TOM CIVILETTI: 9 votes MARTHA SCHRADER: 6 votes

Intriguing result. If Jim Martin had remained in the race, I predict he would have received 5-8 votes.

I'd go with Tome Civilleti. I've read his positngs on here and that gives me a better feel for him and his postitions.

I'd also like to see someone involved directly in construction in the legislature, they have a different perspective on the industry than people who are not. One of the problems with people not involved in the industry being in the legislature, is that now, because of a law that was passed by our legislature in 2007, I'm going to be required to buy worker's comp insurance for myself.

I'm a sole proprietor and an 'exempt' contractor, which means I am not allowed to have employees of my own, although I am allowed to use temp construction services, and I'm also allowed to sub out work to other licensed contractors.

While I'm going to be required to carry worker's comp on myself, I doubt that, in the event of an on the job injury, I will ever be allowed to take advantage of a worker's comp claim. I can't imagine that SAIF or any other worker's comp provider will ever pay off on a claim from someone like me, the potential for fraud is just too great. So I'm going to be required by the 2007 legislature to pay for insurance that I will never be allowed to use.

That's what comes of people who know nothing about the industry they're regulating, passing laws on the industry.

It's good that Tom's a carpenter, it would be even better if he was a small exempt contractor so he could understand the needs of my industry segment.

I still don't want to see Martha go to Salem, because we're right in the critical part of the Urban and Rural Reserves process. Martha's be in it as our Core4 representative for Clackamas county since the first, I believe. I'd like to see her finish out the process. There is a lot of information that a person would have to assimilate in a very short period of time to be of much use on the Core4.

However, that having been said, if Martha did get sent to Salem, I'd like to see Charlotte Lehan replace her on the Core4. I think Charlotte would be the best for that spot.

Interesting point, Steve M, with respect to public vs. secret ballots and the "legislative" function of the PCPs in this instance. It's probably one that is worthy of future discussion (I'm pretty new at this, but I'd imagine that the discussion would be under the auspices of the DPO Rules Committee?). In this case, however, IMO there are two good reasons to consider a secret ballot:

(1) the secret ballot is actually closer to the means carried out by the voters when they select a candidate; and

(2) more importantly, in this case the potential "harm" ("hurt feelings," as you pointed out) is probably greater than the potential benefit (since the vote to rank candidates was entirely advisory in nature anyway and the Commission is perfectly within its rights to take the PCP ranking into consideration, or to ignore it).

We might have a more interesting discussion on what the voting process would/should be if we had had a much larger slate of candidates.

That said, the most important outcome (a slate of strong candidates from a fair process) was the result, and for that I am grateful.

Steve, the vote tally was:

TOBY FORSBERG: 20 votes TOM CIVILETTI: 9 votes MARTHA SCHRADER: 6 votes

That is impressive. It seems clear who the PCPs would like to see get the appointment.

I was rereading some of Tom's comments and was struck at how the usual suspects used to have much more constructive discussions. It seems that since October, there's been a shift in tone, towards the less civil, in all debate.

As to the choices, well, spoilt for choice. Needs some study.

Wow! Toby Forsberg won the PCP vote by a landslide!

It's particularly impressive since I heard that both Kurt and Martha Schrader were at the meeting last night lobbying PCPs.

Wow. I hope the county commissioners follow their recommendation and appoint Forsberg to the Senate.

It's particularly impressive since I heard that both Kurt and Martha Schrader were at the meeting last night lobbying PCPs.

True enough; but to be fair every candidate was in the room chatting with the PCPs for an hour before we convened the meeting; and every candidate had contacted each of us ahead of time, either via snail mail, e-mail, phone, or some combination thereof. So while it's true that Kurt and Martha were at the meeting talking with PCPs before the vote, so were Tom and Toby.

That said, I think the lopsided vote tally (a clear majority for Toby Forsberg) accurately expressed the wishes of the PCPs in letting the Commissioners know that Toby was the most highly favored candidate in the room.

Speaking only for myself, my vote is more an indication of which of the three strong candidates I'd most prefer. We had an embarrassment of riches on the slate and all of the candidates are more than acceptable. Personally I wish we could have all three of them serving at the state level in some capacity.

Looks like I'm about to say "2010" again.... ;-)

Sherrilynn, fair enough. But neither Tom nor Toby are married to a U.S. Congressman who has held that State Senate seat for the past six years!

The fact that Kurt Schrader was actively lobbying for Martha and she still only got 6 votes (to Tom Civiletti's 9 and Toby Forsberg's 20 is staggering. At least to me.

But I agree with you that, more than anything, the vote is a strong affirmation that the PCPs want Toby Forsberg to represent them in the State Senate.

Seems to me, that in order to be appointment to be a State Senator, or a State Representative, that person should have previously been elected, by the citizens, to a major elected position, such as a Mayor of a large city, or a County Commissioner.

To my knowledge, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, neither Tom nor Toby have had that honor; only Martha.

Citizens have the opportunity to see how their elected officials respond to situations, by their votes, as well as how they communicate.

Martha should be their choice.

I want Blagojevich to have this seat.

I find it troubling that the appointee will fill the seat until 2010. The appointee should only fill the seat until then next regularly scheduled election. March 10, 2009 is an election day in Oregon, as is May 19th. Voters in SD 20 should have the option of deciding for themselves who will fill the seat for the rest of the term. Yes, it means the race would be run during the legislative session -- like everywhere else in the country. And yes, it means the replacement would not take office until later in the session, but that's a small problem compared with having no elected representative for two years.

Yes, this means that voters in SD 20 would be voting on a full slate of candidates, including a Republican. But just because they elected Kurt doesn't mean they would elect another Democrat (although I suspect they will). Allowing long-term appointments decided by the party apparatus is a disservice to voters, particularly those who do not belong to the party who "owns" the seat.

Alan, almost NO state legislators have previously served as "a Mayor of a large city, or a County Commissioner." It's a part-time job. Toby and Tom are well qualified.

Toby would be a good choice. Oregon needs more small business owners providing input to the process. Especially on the left.

Seems to me, that in order to be appointment to be a State Senator, or a State Representative, that person should have previously been elected, by the citizens, to a major elected position, such as a Mayor of a large city, or a County Commissioner.

Sorry, OC Dan, I'd respectfully disagree. In order to be appointed to the State Senate, one should be the best person for the job. Period.

Besides, prior elected experience is hardly the criterion to use to predict future performance. Let's see--off the top of my head, we have:

• Former State Senator Kevin Mannix, who served in the state House as a Dem prior to his appointment to the State Senate as a Republican; and

• Ben Westlund, who was appointed to his State Senate seat as a Republican and has since transformed through I to Dem in the State Senate

Not to mention that if we were to go by the criteria of "must have held major elected office" prior to being appointed to the Senate, we wouldn't have had the good fortune to have folks like Pete Sorenson appointed to the state Senate, whose prior "elected office" experience was IIRC something like being on the board at the local community college. I certainly would consider him to have been a qualified state Senator, one who won re-election the following year.

Yes, of course Martha has great experience working alongside her husban in Salem and with the County Commission. At the same time, please recall Toby is a very strong candidate: he has experience as a business owner, as a member of the public sector working for Clackamas County, and as an active community member. He is the father of a child in public school and has worked actively with the Oregon City Schools Foundation. And that Tom has a long history of involvement in grassroots work within the Democratic party and is a very strong progressive voice. Truly they are all well-qualified candidates.

OCD, after the triumph of the November elections, please don't tell me that we should be voting for and appointing candidates for office based solely on the length of their elected office resumes. I'm sure that's not what you meant. ;-)

Whoops. Sorry, OCD. That prior response was directed to Alan, not you. :D Wish ya could go back and edit these danged things. Preview is your friend, Sherrilynn....

OCD your comment" The fact that Kurt Schrader was actively lobbying for Martha and she still only got 6 votes (to Tom Civiletti's 9 and Toby Forsberg's 20 is staggering. At least to me." strikes me as being slightly overstated. I was at the meeting and to the best of my recollection the meet and greet before the meeting was not used by any of the candidates or their supporters to lobby the PCPs. In fact, I was impressed with the obvious civlity and respect the candidates showed each other.

Your suggestion that Kurt was lobbying hard for Martha is rather fanciful ... it just didnt happen.

Yes, civility and respect. But also active lobbying by Kurt Schrader in the weeks and minutes leading up to the meeting.

Maybe people resented the fact that Kurt Schrader carefully timed his resignation to maximize Martha's chances. And to make PCPs come out to meet during the holiday week! :)

I'd agree with mac's characterization of the evening. All of the candidates were civil and friendly with the assembled PCPs and with each other. One can hardly blame Kurt for attending--after all, not only was Martha a candidate on the list; it was candidates for his State Senate seat that we were talking about, fer cryin out loud. He was hardly a disinterested third party no matter whose names were ultimately on the list.

As one of the many PCPs in attendance, I didn't feel particularly "lobbied" strongly by anybody that evening. I felt no pressure whatsoever, from Kurt or anyone else, to vote in any particular way. Perhaps this is because we knew that we had several strong candidates; perhaps it was because we knew that, while we were forwarding a slate, that the County Commissioners are ultimately going to make the decision anyway; I don't know. But I do know that Toby had a lot of grassroots support in the room. Many PCPs had just come off of many long hours (months in some cases) of hard work on the ground knocking on doors and making calls for a candidate they really believe in for state office. I'm sure that counted for something. My opinion only here, but IMO the vote in the room was really pro-Toby more than anti-anyone else.

FWIW.

OC Dan ... the timing of Kurt's resignation had less to do about Martha's chances then it was about making sure that the snake in the grass known as Bill Kenemmer was not involved in what is esentially a democratic party process ... if he had resigned earlier, Kenemmer would have been involved as a county commissioner. Ugh ... perish the thought!

Finally, I didnt hear one person complain about the date of the meeting. I also talked to other PCPs that were unable to attend last nite ... they did not voice any complaints to me.

Yeah, I figure in terms of the timing Kurt was kinda "damned if he did, damned if he didn't." While one might complain about the timing as it played out, other scenarios could be equally criticized. If Kurt had resigned earlier there might be complaints about having only three(!) commissioners to make the ultimate decision, one of whom had just run a race against one of the candidates and another of whom might have been in the running for the seat. No pressure there, eh, Lynn? :-) Not to mention that if the resignation had happened earlier we might have had to drive through ice and/or snow (depending on when the 20 day time limit fell) in order to convene a meeting of the PCPs. Yikes.

Nah, I'd say it worked about as well as could be expected. And we really win no matter what. After all, we get Kurt in the 5th CD and a strong Dem to represent us in SD 20, regardless of the ultimate decision of the County Commissioners.

Now, about those 103 folks who are all applying to fill the vacancy on the Clack. County Board. THAT ought to be interesting....

In the vacancy appointment last spring for Suzanne Bonamici's House seat (and probably for Brad Avakian's Senate vacancy too), all of the precinct committee votes were by secret ballot. If there's a tradition of such votes being public, it hasn't been practiced here recently. While legislators have to vote publicly, voters who elect them don't. It's an electoral process, not a legislative function.

Wayne Kinney's right on all scores, except one: Precinct committee voters are not required to nominate three to five candidates to fill a legislative vacancy. It's just that if they nominate fewer than three or more than five, the county commissioners are not required to appoint one of their nominees. By nominating 3-5, the PCPs have some influence on the pool of appointees. But depending on how many PCPs show up for the nominating meeting and their preferences, they can do almost anything they wish.

Jeebus, contested PCP elections?!?

I was elected for the first time as a precinct committee person this spring when I was volunteering for the Obama campaign and I learned a little bit about what PCPs were (thanks, Obama Campaign and Clackamas County Democrats), and that my precinct didn't have one.

I "campaigned" by asking my husband and a couple of neighbors in my precinct to write me in for PCP in our precinct (and at least a few of them must have); I guess my "campaign slogan" was something like "vote for me; I'm better than nobody."

While I am grateful to have the opportunity to serve the party even in this limited capacity, and I love working with the Clackamas County Dems, I can't imagine CONTESTED elections for PCP. Wow.

The benefit of Kurt waiting is the removal of "sour puss" Bill from the decision making process.

I lived in the district for a number of years (from the more conservative areas of the more conservative HD-39), and plan on going back after college. Although I've certainly seen the name Civiletti around, I'm a bit more familiar with Toby, and much more with the Schraders. I am from Canby, after all.

From what I've seen and heard, Martha is very intelligent, and has been a fine County Commissioner. The Schraders have been very successful in an area which is not very comfortable territory for Democrats, and that should be remembered. Martha came within 900 votes of winning in 2002, if I recall correctly, and certainly with that performance had she been running for the senate district, she'd have won.

I did a bit of precinct analysis of HD-39, and was very impressed with the performance of Toby Forsberg's campaign. He came closer to winning that seat than any Democrat has since the last redistricting, and once again, had he been running in the full senate district with that kind of performance, he'd have won in a walk. In some ways, he's a very good fit for the district.

It should be kept in mind that no Democrat has won HD-39, the more conservative half of the district, since the last redistricting, though it now has a very narrow Democratic registration advantage. Martha, running in 2002, in a bad year generally for Democrats, and in Oregon, particularly for female Democrats running against male Republicans for the state legislature (chalk it up to post-9/11/2001 chauvinism), came very close, the second closest of any of our candidates. Toby came even closer this past Fall. I think either would do a fine job representing the people of senate district 20.

And personally I can't wait until whoever is going to be named gets named, because I applied for a state legislative internship, and indicated my interest in interning with whoever gets this seat.

A good year for Dems? A great year for Dems. Kudos, well done to the candidates.

But given everyone's comments here...any of the candidates could do well, excellent slate, etc....why not send the one with the most political experience, who has represented the County well (at least from all I hear).

Is there some other reason that a high profile democrat, with the most experience, a proven track record and impeccable connections up (Federal now) and down (County) the scale is rated the least desirable selection by fellow Democrats?

<h2>Some of us who were not at the meeting, are confused. Perhaps it was clearer when they spoke about the issues that the other two were better prepared. I mean, if you have to select a new well qualified but inexperienced candidate, so be it. But when you have a range of other options?</h2>