HD-43: Lew Frederick, Karol Collymore & Eddie Lincoln nominated
T.A. Barnhart
After the fact: Lew Frederick, Karol Collymore and Eddie Lincoln are the three nominees to be presented to the Multnomah County Commissioners next week; the board will select one of the three to replace Chip Shields as Representative for House District 43. Frederick was the evening’s clear winner, garnering 54 of the 79 votes cast on the first ballot. As Shields was also a decisive selection for the Senate District 22 opening recently, and yet almost did not gain the seat, it’s not clear that being the choice of the nominating convention is sufficient for all the commissioners. We’ll see on October 22nd.
Now for the evening’s events, as they occured (with intermitent editorial comment).
The House District 43 nominating convention is being held at MLK Elementary in NE Portland. Before the Multnomah County Commissioners almost overturned the clear-cut choice fro SD 22, I would have said Lew Frederick was a lock for the seat (and deservedly so). But Karol Collymore’s surprise, but well-deserved, third-place finish at that convention, and then the Commission almost tossing aside the convention’s clear choice, it’s hard to say. Lew may have wrangled the necessary votes; Karol may have grabbed the momentum. She would make a great representative, but, in my view, Lew is far and away the most qualified and most deserving. HD 43 will come out a winner no matter what, but there are wins and then there are wins.
We’ll see.
Wayne Kinney is back; this is approximately the 235th nominating convention he has led since the Legislature closed up shop. By my count, there will be 3 incumbents returning for the special session next year. But I think this should be the last of them, unless the governor appoints somebody to a board or commission to get them out of the Legislature (hm, perhaps there’s somewhere to stash Vic Gilliam).
79 PCPs registered to cast votes tonight. Mult Dems Chair KC Hanson got the show rolling, going through the necessary steps to get things official, then turned over the convention to DPO Rules Chair (and DNC member) Wayne Kinney. Wayne pointed out that while this is the second such convention in this district in a month, Malheur County PCPs have not even had a Democratic Representative in 40 years. In other words, count your blessings, local Democrats.
This is the 3rd one of these I’ve sat through; I got to participate in one (HD 16 in 2005, where Sara Gelser was selected). I understand the process pretty well now. A majority wins one of the nominations in that round; votes are cast until someone does get a majority each round, with low votes meaning you’re out of that round.
First business of the meeting was to decide how many to nominate. Fred Stewart argued for 5 (Let the Commissioners sort them out, sort of like gun-owners, criminals and God); Joe Smith argued that as PCPs, it’s their responsibility to make this decision - none of the members of the County Commission even live in HD 43. The convention decided on three nominees, by an overwhelming majority.
Each candidate spoke for five minutes. Here’s the gist (as I was able to capture it) of what they said.
Catherine Thomasson. Health care professional & advocate. Listen to the patient before making a decision, take all variables into account before making a decision. Listen to everyone involved, get their perspective & learn from them. This has prepared me to be a legislator. Need to serve people and not special interests. Free public education made this country great; one of my foremost duties will be to get Tax Fairness measures endorsed in January.
Lew Frederick. We’re all in this together. Working in education, saw what cuts did to education. Got involved with the Bus in 2004 (now on the Board), and despite the disappointment that year, has kept on working in this. Grew up in the South, helping to integrate his high school. Union leader in Portland, 32 years in Irvington before it was a good place to live. Experienced police racial profiling, including gun to his head. Helped make student voice part of the decision-making process. Voter registration in 2004 and 2008. Carried this district when he ran for County Commission. On many civic boards, including State Board of Education. Wants to make Wapato a secure site for mental health treatment of prisoners. Bring parity to all schools. Detailed list of legislation to deal with many issues. Racial equity dealing when dealing with environmental issues.
Brad Perkins. Born & grew up in this neighborhood. This community drew me back. FDR’s first inauguration: getting jobs is a crisis worthy of going to war. We are doing that badly now. Background in design, development, real estate: I can put together deals, have worked on many involving public sector. Wants to use that background, include work in communities and bringing groups together, to develop projects like high speed rail from Vancouver to Portland, negating the need for a big bridge.
Eddie Lincoln. 1 reason to run: to win. And to serve HD 43. Deep roots in community: born, raised, went to school here. Worked for small and big companies, drove TriMet buses. Urban League. His kids went to school here, they’ve gone on to good careers. Everything I’ve done is for my family, 2 jobs at time, education; it’s not been easy. Tried to install good values in family. I’ve served dislocated workers at PCC; helped many people find work over past 12 years. I can remember the way things were, but we can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines. Economic implosion has had destructive results. Middle class has been decimated, and we need a new direction. That begins here in HD 43. I’m a Democrat who will support and fight for progressive policies for the middle class. I’ll depend on your help on setting priorities. Economic equity, social justice and equal rights.
Steve Adamson. Retail business owner, 90% of stock is locally sourced, products aimed at getting people to help themselves. Also works with a local elementary school; fun and helps the kids. Aware of what it takes to develop businesses and grow jobs. Been in the district since 2000, has been involved with several campaigns (anything against Sizemore). Was previously involved in similar organizations in Eugene and Corvallis. Main points: Health care (public option); economic development (Van Jones: green jobs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, benefits now and beyond the life of the program); access to capital to grow business; trade apprenticeships; youth programs; schools (increase funding, especially take from corrections); equal rights for GLBT (need a champion in Salem for that).
Karol Collymore. Logical next step in her career built on public service. Last 10 years, haven’t done anything that hasn’t been about community. BlueOregon & Cogen. What sets me apart is what I’ve done for Portland: providing food through lands set aside for community to grow; new library in Kenton; new farmers market; 1-stop domestic violence help; increased motor vehicle rental tax; above all, a 30-year old woman with a different perspective. Wants government to be accessible to young people. Need to work for others so everyone can move forward. Equal distribution of education funds. Issues of equity based on race, class, sexual orientation. What matters is what constituents want & how I would represent your concerns in Salem.
(Carlos Richard dropped out before the convention; he decided he could not fulfill the obligations of office at this point in his life.)
Lew had the most detailed platform, and he had the strongest, most assured presentation. Karol had a good body of work; Steve and Eddie also had excellent, unique backgrounds - but they did not have strong presentations. Lew’s background in media and in the public spotlight made a big difference in this forum.
During the vote counting break, appeals to work against the ballot measures in January (vote Yes to keep the tax measures in place). Shirley Minor, Mult Dems District Leader, made a pitch for the PCPs to stay involved, not just come to this sort of special event. Got part way thru her Obama story… then the first round ballots were presented:
Round 1 Ballot 1 - 79 votes cast
LF 54
KC 14
EL 1
SA 4
BP 0
CT 3
Clear winner. On to Round 2.
Shirley continues her story and people start to leave. The moral of Shirley’s story: you might get to meet a future president & you might get to go to the national convention.
Round 2 Ballot 1
KC 32
EL 24
SA 7
BP 0
CT 13
No winner; Adamson & Perkins dropped from next ballot.
Round 2 Ballot 2
KC 35
EL 22
CT 17
Still no winner; Thomasson dropped.
Round 2 Ballot 2
KC 36
EL 35
Karol is second nominee — barely.
Round 3 Ballot 1
CT 17
EL 42
SA 9
BP 1
Not surprisingly, after the way Round 2 went, Lincoln wins the third nomination.
The convention for SD 22 went exactly the same way: A clear winner in Round 1, 3 ballots to get the expected Round 2 winner, and then the runner-up from Round 2 an easy Round 3 win.
All six candidates presented great backgrounds, great personal histories of what a life of community activism can be. Each one came from a different place; each has made important contributions. In HD 43, as throughout Oregon, we have more quality leaders than elective offices. I hope they all stay involved and continue to make their contributions in other ways.
Great work from the PCPs of HD 43 who came out tonight to select the nominees for the Commissioners. I hope the latter respects the decision made by these citizens and endorses this process rather than overturning it. We’ll see.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:47 p.m.
Oct 14, '09
Results also posted here: Multnomah Democrats
Oct 15, '09
TA, you have been beating this horse for weeks. We get it. You are a true believer of both Chip and Lew—and that is great—but you still don't acknowledge (or maybe realize) why so many new PCP's jumped on the scene in September. You noticed this was an unusual event when you wrote:
"Mult Dems: Please, kids, take away our toys"
Are you kidding me? Shields encouraged his supporters to become PCP’s so they would vote for him in the convention. Frederick also benefited from this because he was endorsed by Shields. There is nothing unethical or wrong about this, it is just the fact of the matter and a good way to run a campaign. Lew Frederick, Karol Collymore and Eddie Lincoln would all be a fine choice. I just can’t stand seeing you beat the drum of “the convention’s clear choice” or that the commissioners would somehow be doing something wrong by picking the #2 or #3 nomination over #1. Your drivel is getting a little embarrassing dude.
Oct 15, '09
Karol Collymore...what I’ve done for Portland: providing food through lands set aside for community to grow
Wow. I didn't realize, when I never got a response in 5 years on community garden issues at BO, that I was being ignored by the best!
Transparency is great for public trust, as long as that transparency doesn't reveal congenital cronyism!
Oct 15, '09
Good showing by Eddie, but Lew's first ballot is very decisive. Thanks for the breakdown of the process Blue Oregon and T.A.
Oct 15, '09
Great work from the PCPs of HD 43 who came out tonight to select the nominees for the Commissioners. I hope the latter respects the decision made by these citizens and endorses this process rather than overturning it. We’ll see.
The only way for the Commissioners to overturn the process is if they refused to pick one of the three candidates that the PCP's of HD 43 put forward which would then give the responsibility of the decision to the Governor.
This post is so clearly biased it is embarrassing. Saying that Lew had a clear majority of the votes is fair but so much of the rest is opinion and quite subjective. Other people who were there had a very different impression of how Karol presented herself. It would have been appropriate to note how the mass appointment of new PCP's impacted the process. Unfortunately, that would not have suited TA's agenda ergo - no mention.
9:19 a.m.
Oct 15, '09
Let me repost and revise my earlier comment from an SD-22 thread on this issue.
I disagree with T.A. that the County Commission has a responsibility to automatically ratify the first choice of the PCPs. The commissioners have a legal role here, for a reason.
The party's precinct committee people, who nominate 3-5 candidates, are selected by the party. Some are elected by voters, most are appointed by the pre-existing PCPs. Either way, they're there to represent the party's views.
But the commissioners represent all the voters. Their job is to make a selection that doesn't just reflect the will of the voters, but rather reflects the will of the broader electorate.
Let me give you an example:
Let's say that, by some fluke (scandal or death or something), the State Rep in HD-43 was a Republican. Upon that Senators' resignation mid-term, the GOP PCP's in HD-43 would nominate 3-5. I don't know who those people are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the top vote-getter was the most conservative right-winger of the bunch. But the county commission, recognizing that the electorate in HD-43 isn't a right-wing electorate, would likely approve another candidate - perhaps the more moderate GOPer that was in third or even fifth place.
It's perfectly reasonable - and even preferable - that the County Commissioners, who are each elected directly by the voters, have as much or more of a role than PCPs, whose role is important but fundamentally (and correctly) partisan in nature.
Since we don't fill vacancies through special elections (and we should), the process we've got seems like a solid one to me. And everyone who is part of it ought to apply their best judgment - rather than merely rubber-stamping someone else's judgment.
9:19 a.m.
Oct 15, '09
This post is so clearly biased it is embarrassing.
Uh, it's a blog. It's supposed to be biased. I disagree with some of TA's conclusions, but they're his conclusions - and he's perfectly entitled to them.
Oct 15, '09
First, we should elect replacements through special elections. But since the two parties in this state continue to disenfranchise voters by keeping a lock on the nominating process. . .
I hope the latter respects the decision made by these citizens and endorses this process rather than overturning it.
Wrong. The role of the PCPs is questionable to begin with (see above). But they are just following state law. The only redeeming thing about this process is that the ultimate decision is left up to officials who have actually been elected by a broad constituency, and so there is some ability to hold them accountable for their good or bad decisions. The County Commission should absolutely disregard the votes from the party apparatchiks and evaluate the candidates before them using their own criteria.
Uh, it's a blog. It's supposed to be biased.
Minor point, Kari, but I think when people say a post on BO is biased, it's not that they're looking for objective reporting. It's that they're looking for intellectual honesty, the ability to make your case by refuting the opposition rather than pretending that the opposition doesn't even exist.
Oct 15, '09
I have to disagree with what you're saying Kari.
Single person public appointments, like Governors appointing US Senators, has been common practice for MANY years in all but a few States (no...not here) and it's a terrible practice that rewards back-room dealings in the political process.
In Oregon, as decided by the State Legislature years ago, having 5 people decide who represents 35,000 thousand at the legislative level is better...but not perfect. Many Oregon Counties only have 3 elected County Commissioners.
Having 79 Precinct Committee People is better still...but still not perfect. The goal should be an actual election, but since we don't have that, the closest and most representative of actual Democracy...is selecting the choice voted on by the most people assembled to approximate an election. Especially if that person was selected by a margin of 5 to 1. In modern political speak...a landslide.
10:26 a.m.
Oct 15, '09
Posted by: Don't agree with you Kari | Oct 15, 2009 9:52:01 AM
I would also add, that while it isn't always the case with this process, in this particular instance, the person who clearly won the first ballot by a wide margin, also received more votes by the actual voters in the entire House district in question, than one of the members who actually sits on the board to make the final decision on the replacement, on Jeff Cogan, who just happens to be the daytime boss and employer of one Karol Collymore.
This may be impolitic of me to say, but when someone who was "endorsed by the Oregonian" before they even announced they were seeking this appointment, who works for the guy who is 1/5th of the final vote, and yet barely managed to avoid getting not getting in until a third round of balloting... somehow I think the "smokey back room" moves that might be possible are not on Lew's part. That Lew Fredrick got a ton of support from the grassroots, in that many people who know and have worked with Lew on the ground for years, to first attend both the Senate convention and help Chip Shields get in and many came back the second time to help vote for Lew is a good thing. That is not something nefarious on Lew's part, but something to be applauded (i.e. the grassroots helping someone they know and who has been in the trenches with them for years).
Oct 15, '09
Oct 15, 2009 9:17:10 AM
Todd did a good job of reporting this event, and writes in the second graph: "with intermitent editorial comment" so the intermitent editorial comment shouldn't really come as a surprise.
10:36 a.m.
Oct 15, '09
You mean like Karol's boss, whom Lew actually received more votes over from within the HD when they both ran for the seat Jeff now holds on the commission?
As it pertains to this particular district, more people have voted for Lew Frederick within the district than they did for Karol's boss who is 1/5th of the commission's vote to decide the appointment.
Granted that is not usually applicable to the larger systemic questions you are addressing, but I think it is worth underscoring, and rather telling, that in this particular case, if the commission selects Lew it would actually be a better reflection of the broader electorate within the district than the actual make-up of the commission itself.
Just sayin'
Oct 15, '09
But the commissioners represent all the voters. Their job is to make a selection that doesn't just reflect the will of the voters, but rather reflects the will of the broader electorate.
The Chair represents all the voters in the county. The other four folks are elected by district. Why should the will of the people in East County (McKeel) be able to rule over who represents HD 43?
Voters in HD 43 only voted on two of the five commissioners - Cogen and Wheeler. As noted above, the voters in the district already selected Frederick in a County Commission race.
So if the question is: do the voters of HD 43 support Frederick? The answer is pretty clear.
If the question is: who does the party support? The answer is clear too. Since this is a 9% Republican district, and a 86% or so Obama district (i.e. the nonaffiliateds lean Democratic), the Ds own the district, so who the party supports matters.
Granted, it's messy. If folks want to run in the May primary and have this decided by voters directly, that would be great. That would clear everything up.
For now, if I'm a county commissioner looking at what's closest to what the voters would want, everything points to supporting Lew.
11:35 a.m.
Oct 15, '09
BINGO!
Well said.
11:43 a.m.
Oct 15, '09
plus, Charlie, it's my name on the post so of course i will be opining!
i had a great chat with Jeff Cogen this morning about the process. we don't agree, but i know that he will be making the decision he feels is the right decision for him to make as an elected County Commissioner. i totally respect that, even if i disagree his choices.
12:15 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Oct 15, 2009 11:43:23 AM
Let me guess... he is going to vote for his employee. (wry grin)
1:16 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
I think the only thing that was missing from TA's blog post and his testimony at the County hearing this morning is that he is an ardent Lew Fredrick supporter.
1:46 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
When these kinds of issues arise, it is often difficult to separate the result you want from the philosophy you endorse.
Having been a county commissioner who had to vote on such appointments, I would urge those of you who have a preference for one candidate over the others to make your arguments to commissioners based on who would be the best representative, not who the commissioner should feel obligated to support because of the PCP vote.
However strongly some of you may feel that the commissioners should defer to the PCPs, I can pretty much guarantee you that the commissioners do not feel that way.
Oct 15, '09
"However strongly some of you may feel that the commissioners should defer to the PCPs, I can pretty much guarantee you that the commissioners do not feel that way. "
Yes, Jack, and Mult. Co. being an exception, many counties have Comm. of both parties.
Sometimes Comm. vote on who impressed them the most during the process.
1:58 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
Of that I have no doubt that they, like many elected officials both inside and outside of the party) view the PCPs with with benign indifference (at best).
2:01 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
Don't worry Karol, I'm sure your boss has your back for you, voters in the district be damned.
2:06 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
Which is why when there is a vacant seat, the party of the outgoing legislator holds a convention to vote on a slate of candidates for the county commissioners to choose from, of the opposing parties don't flip a seat to their own party. Which is why, as flawed as this system might be from some perspectives, short of always having a costly special election every time a legislator vacates a seat, this is why we have this system set up.
Oct 15, '09
"voters in the district be damned."
Do voters in the district elect pct. people? If the pct. people file and are elected on the ballot, then the folks in that pct. elected them.
But how many pct. people were appointed rather than elected? Did "voters in the district" have any say on who was appointed?
There has often been a clash in this state between the wishes of elected officials and the wishes of a political party. Elected officials can be voted in by voters of any party or no party.
3:16 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
"Posted by: LT | Oct 15, 2009 2:21:58 PM
"voters in the district be damned."
Do voters in the district elect pct. people? If the pct. people file and are elected on the ballot, then the folks in that pct. elected them"
Most are. IIRC from when I was a DL in Multnomah county, it is both. PCPs can be elected, and they can be appointed.
4:02 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
voters in the district be damned.
No, not a single PCP is elected by the voters in the district.
Some are elected by DEMOCRATIC voters in the district, while some are appointed. But not a single one was elected by the entire electorate.
Now, I think there ought to be a special election for vacancies. But since there's not, this process seems a reasonable approximation thereof.
Whether it is or it isn't, you should expect your County Commissioners to exercise their best judgment - that's the role that state law gives them, and that's what we should expect of them as elected officials. Their best judgment and nothing less.
Hate the process? Find someone (perhaps the new State Rep for HD-43) to propose a bill in the legislature, work to get it passed, then work to get the voters to pass it as a constitutional amendment.
But until that happens, let's not slam on the county commissioners for exercising their best judgment - as the Oregon Constitution requires them to do.
4:59 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
Yes, of course we all would assume and expect Jeff Cogan to exercise his best judgment when his official spokesperson and employee is one of the candidates.
6:29 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
This was an interesting post and I appreciate it Todd. I'm glad to get a play by play even tho I couldn't be there. You may want to be a little more open in your disclosures on who you are supporting when you write something about a race otherwise it devalues it substantially.
Let me just say that I am so proud of the PCP's in HD 43, where I resided until just weeks ago. If I were there, my votes would have gone to the three candidates you forwarded to the commission. Heck, if there were an election of all voters in the district to send a slate of names of replacements, I'd bet these would have still been your three.
Oct 15, '09
Kari, is it possible that the fact that Mandate Media makes money on elections, not appointments, affects your preference for special elections over an in-house nomination/appointment process?
Wouldn't it be best for the party and for "blue" Oregon as a whole if we could save precious campaign dollars for contested seats in the general election, instead of Democratic infighting in the primary? We could be talking about $100,000 here, would it really be best spent with an out of season election?
With that in mind, I certainly would be okay with the R's wasting precious time and resources with unnecessary special elections...
Oct 15, '09
Thank you Jack Roberts for bringing it back to the point - the commissioners should pick the person who is best qualified for the job.
Lew's extensive experience, expertise, relationship with the district and its various communities, deep understanding of the district and the state's issues, and ability to listen and build consensus makes Lew the best choice.
It is Lew's more extensive experience, accomplishments and connection to HD-43, not the overwhelming preference HD-43 PCP's have for him, that should earn him the selection from the Board of Commissioners.
Lew has lived in the district and led a life of public service for 30+ years. Karol has lived in the district for one year,(N/NE Portland a bit longer) and has an impressive but brief career of public service. (I certainly don't mean to knock the good work you've done Karol, just trying to put it in perspective.)
Lew has done a lot in his career - as a young man in the South he integrated his high school during the civil rights movement. As a shop steward for his union he negotiated a contract winning 32 of 33 concessions - that was almost two decades ago, and it stands today as the only union shop in Portland TV. He brought the student voice to the school board. He's served on the state Board of Education. He's spent the last year and change interviewing stakeholders throughout N/NE Portland to assess the effectiveness of economic policies. Point is he's gotten a lot done. If I'm not mistaken, most of the accomplishments Karol mentioned in her speech are things that she did in her capacity as Jeff Cogen's staffer.
Most importantly, Lew won the vote of HD-43 just three years ago, in a race against Commissioner Cogen no less (Karol's boss - though if you were there for the BRO dinner last weekend, you'll remember that according to Cogen, he works for Karol, not vice-versa..)
I'm thrilled that all the candidates who put their names in did - I enjoyed their speeches, they're probably all great people, and (as I've said before), I don't doubt that some day I'll be supporting Karol for office.
But right now, if I'm a County Commissioner, this isn't a tough choice at all - there is one candidate who has several achievable policy ideas that will positively affect the HD-43 community and all of Oregon, who has a long track record of success and service, all very relevant to legislating, who has the overwhelming support of the party, who mobilized dozens of people to get involved as PCP's(and helped increase the African American contingent among them by a factor of ten), and who won the vote of the entire district less than three years ago.
What more?
Oct 15, '09
@Alex Tinker
I understand what you are saying but there is sort of an elephant in the conversation that no one is talking about. Lew has done great work, has lived in the district for longer, is a board member for good organizations, is sort of a local celebrity because of his previous career, is much older and still is in a major fight with Karol for this seat. To me, it seems that Lew needed a 20-30yr (sorry, not exactly sure how old Lew is) year head start to compete with Karol in this race. Karol as demonstrated ability, passion, and a gift to of bring people together in her relatively short 10 year career in pubic service (the only career she has ever had)and people have already noticed how effective she is--hence the almost taking the senate seat and her standing in the current race. If we are looking to the future of this district and the future of Oregon, shouldn’t we grab someone on their way up rather than someone standing on their last political legs?
9:03 p.m.
Oct 15, '09
Jesse, to say i'm an "ardent" Lew supporter overstates it. i believe he is the most qualified; i think the choice of Lew should be an easy one for the commissioners to make. "i think." Karol and anyone else who reads my posts knows i never say anything but what i think & feel.
that said (to repeat a joke from last night), i should have been clear in my post that i did support Lew. i did my best to be even-handed throughout. my biggest problem was erratic typing; i lost a lot of what the candidates were saying. and i honestly think Lew had the strongest presentation last night. it's not surprising given his background and experience.
i did not feel the need to state who i supported when i spoke before the County Commissioners this morning. i was saying nothing about any candidate. i would have felt the same had Karol gotten a unanimous first round win. 5 commissioners, none of whom live in the district, should not have veto power over those who came forward to represent their community last night. the process was open, transparent, and produced a people's choice. that should be good enough for the commissioners. i'm pretty sure it won't be, not for all of them.
yet more reason to get rid of this stupid process and have special elections. this sucks ass.
Oct 16, '09
Is this an early proxy on Cogen for Mayor? Getting his person appointed as the most powerful African-American officeholder in Portland and the state could have a lot of upside potential in 2012.
Jeff seems like a really good guy, but if this were any other issue, he would have to recuse himself.
Oct 16, '09
(Just in case it isn't clear, I'm a Lew supporter.)
@hawker
If Karol has a superior "ability to bring people together," then why were there only 14 people at the nominating convention who voted for her first?
If this is a close race, why did Lew win first place with 68% of the ballot in one round of voting, but Karol won second place with 50%+1 in three rounds of voting? (It was a VERY close race between Karol and Eddie Lincoln for second, coming down to one vote.)
IMHO, there is a major fight because Karol works for one of the commissioners, a job that of course she'd have to give up (constitutionally) if she were to get the appointment.
It's absurd that you'd say Lew is standing on his last political legs - he is in his prime, and this is his time. He is standing on an impressive career and base of support.
There will be plenty more races for Karol to jump into, and sooner or later she will be the most qualified person in one of them. (Karol, again, glad you're in this race, I'm glad you're getting this exposure and experience, and I'll be on here arguing in you favor, soon enough!)
Karol stated that the reason she's running is that this is the "logical next step in (her) career" - I disagree. I think there are a few more steps, a few more years in the community, a few more accomplishments, and a little bit more perspective.
Lew, on the other hand, has all the experience and perspecitve needed to represent us effectively in Salem. That's why the commissioners should pick him.
Oh, and the thing about 68% of the party leadership picking him Wednesday, and a majority of voters in the district picking him in 2006, I suppose that should count for something too.
@big picture
I'm a huge Cogen fan - love the work he's done, he's clearly quite intelligent, and I agree with most of his positions. That said, if he vetoes our district's democratic choice for our representative in Salem, I can imagine if he does run for mayor, he'll have a harder time in HD-43. And frankly, I don't think he'll score any points with the African American community by picking the community's second choice over it's first.
@Everyone who says the PCP recruiting process stacks the deck
This is how elections are won. You organize people to vote for you. Lew did the best job organizing PCP's because he has the most people in the district who support him. That will carry if and when there is an election for this seat. The requirements to be a PCP and to vote in the primary are the same.
Oct 16, '09
Which is why when there is a vacant seat, the party of the outgoing legislator holds a convention to vote on a slate of candidates for the county commissioners to choose from, of the opposing parties don't flip a seat to their own party.
Unless you're a party hack, this system doesn't make any sense at all. There are all kinds of hypothetical situations where voters might opt to switch parties after a resignation. In some districts that lean left or right, the rep may be of the opposite party due solely to personal appeal. The idea that most voters vote for party, rather than candidate, is simply wrong in American democracy. Our appointment system disenfranchises voters and gives that control to parties. It is a travesty.
11:19 a.m.
Oct 16, '09
Jeff seems like a really good guy, but if this were any other issue, he would have to recuse himself.
Actually, I don't think that's true. She works for him, he doesn't work for her. He has no financial or pecuniary interest in her being elected to the legislature, which is the basic standard for conflicts of interest in Oregon.
Cogen should no more recuse himself from this decision than other commissioners who may have receive a campaign contribution, political endorsement or volunteer campaign help from any of the other candidates. In fact, it is to be expected that the candiates whose names are forwarded will have been politically active and very likely have had previous or current interactions with the sitting county commissioners.
And by the way, I don't live in Multnomah County and am a Republican to boot (and am not foolish enough to think a Republican is going to win this seat), so I personally have no preference as to which person the Commissioners pick. But I do think all of this hand-wringing over the process if pretty silly.
1:49 p.m.
Oct 16, '09
I agree with Jesse, I think HD 43 did an excellent job of putting forward 3 extremely qualified candidates that would serve the district well and would be an asset to the House Democratic caucus. There will need to be a majority decision by the County Commissioners for the appointment and once that happens, we will all rally around the winner, thank the commissioners for a job well done and support the newly appointed Representative.
The collateral damage or potential political gain for future campaigns for any of the commissioners over this vote, regardless of the outcome, will be minimal. All three candidates are good people and team players that are committed to the democratic process and to the party. None of them are spiteful enough to coordinate a campaign against 3-5 commissioners they disagree with on the appointment. Any person who chose to put forward that kind of effort would not represent Lew, Karol, Eddie or the best interests of the Democratic Party.
1:57 p.m.
Oct 16, '09
Wouldn't it be best for the party and for "blue" Oregon as a whole if we could save precious campaign dollars for contested seats in the general election, instead of Democratic infighting in the primary? We could be talking about $100,000 here, would it really be best spent with an out of season election?
Well, it might be nice for donors. But I think voters are best served by having elections, rather than appointments.
Especially in districts that are largely controlled by a single party, if there's not a special election, then all we're doing is handing off the incumbency from one to the next - and the voters never get any real choice.
Like I said, this process is reasonable enough. I can understand the desire to avoid protracted election battles. But I do think there should be some sort of way to make sure that voters get their opportunity to weigh in. For example, by forbidding the appointee from running in the next regular election.
Oct 16, '09
I do think there should be some sort of way to make sure that voters get their opportunity to weigh in. For example, by forbidding the appointee from running in the next regular election.
I like the effect you'd want this policy to have - making it so that after someone resigns, there is a competitive election, but I'd oppose it for one reason:
It would create a second class of legislators.
If this were the case, no one who really wanted the job would put themselves up for appointment. The result would be a representative who wasn't fully committed, and furthermore who knew they would not be accountable to anyone, and so could do just about anything they wanted.
While the incumbent advantage is awesome, it is safe to assume that even incumbents are unseated when the commit egregious acts.
How's this for a policy - when a seat is vacated, the member selects another member in the same chamber to vote on their behalf until the term expires, when all those interested in the seat can fight it out in an election?
In terms of adequate democratic representation, I think this could work, but then our state reps are also our advocates when dealing with state agencies, so it would need to do something about that.
11:17 p.m.
Oct 16, '09
PCPs are essentially party volunteers. Even those who are elected by voters of their own party typically run unopposed at least in Multnomah County, and I'm pretty sure there is a massive undervote for PCPs compared to any kind of contested primary.
Another way of looking at that situation would be to say that the PCPs are the next thing to self-appointed. As I've seen the process over the last year and a bit, there's little indication of an inclination on the part of the party to turn down volunteers. Shirley Minor's quoted exhortations reflect both a concern that the motives of this large class in these senatorial and house districts are different than usual and a hope that they may be converted to creating a few additional party activists.
It would be interesting to know the history of this law. One of the ways Multnomah County is different from many others is in the number of legislative districts in the county. Does this law date from a more rural past?
In fact mathematically if there are 30 senators and 36 counties and knowing that Multnomah and probably a few other more urban counties have more than one senator there must be quite a few situations where senate districts are larger than one county. How are such seats handled?
10:52 a.m.
Oct 17, '09
Chris, the math is complicated, as you can imagine, but there is provision for proportional votes in both the nominating convention and the joint meeting of the County Boards of Commissioners of the counties that include pieces of the district. This was the case in HD 35, where there is (I think) just one Multnomah County precinct and the rest is in Washington County. It's in ORS 171.060 - 171.064.
Oct 18, '09
It seems utterly wrong to me that Cogan votes for his employee. Maybe because I'm a lawyer -- we have extensive rules about conflicts and this would be one. But: voting for an employee (Karol) over the guy (Lew) who beat Cogan in the district (but lost the overall election for county commissioner), and who was the clear choice of the activists who took the trouble to show up at the convention? It doesn't smell right to me.
<h2>In general, I support Cogan, and am not questioning his good faith on this (but I think he's wrong for not recusing himself); for this election I support Lew and voted for him as a PCP last week.</h2>