switched to this system of utilizing precinct people the main result was to have the precinct spots packed with sleeper votes to fill vacancies rather than party activists.

To paraphrase from When Harry met Sally I'll have some of whatever John's having.

I can safely say that I've met hundreds of Democratic Party PCPs and not one has ever argued that their motivation for joing was to lay around until they got a chance to tip the scales in an appointment to fill a vacancy.

I am not for special elections just to fill that position, too expensive (there would also have been one for the senate seat).

I'm okay with the current selection process Really, I can't think of a better one. Except, perhaps, if the relevant party caucus in the relevant legislative branch picked the replacement.

Cogen just needs to vote.

I'd prefer anyone selected by county commissioners (or party caucus, above) not be permit to run for "reelection." Let there be a level playing field for the replacement election.

I can safely say that I've met hundreds of Democratic Party PCPs and not one has ever argued that their motivation for joing was to lay around until they got a chance to tip the scales in an appointment to fill a vacancy.

As I noted when I argued for special elections last week - usually being a PCP is a mark of devotion to ones' party. However there are a good amount of people who sign up to be PCPs so that they can vote in nominating conventions... only to then disappear once the appointment has occurred. Which is why you've never met any; if you meet a PCP at a normal party event aside from these conventions, I'm sure they actually are interested in their position. It really wouldn't be that hard for a candidate for an appointment to get a bunch of friends to show up at the county party meeting and sign up to be PCPs immediately prior to the nominating convention. Whether or not that's actually happened recently, I have no idea.

One thing to further clarify my comment, I'm talking about people that sign up to be PCPs at the party meeting immediately prior to a nominating convention. I agree that most PCPs who sign up anytime else in the year are likely not just waiting for a vacancy to come up in their district.

However there are a good amount of people who sign up to be PCPs so that they can vote in nominating conventions... only to then disappear once the appointment has occurred.....

Sure Nick, it's a logical construct, but I'll have to hear that this actually occurs with enough frequency to be a problem before I'll agree that it's worth worrying about.

I agree that, long-term, we should shift to special elections. That will, of course, require a constitutional amendment.

But I disagree, TA, that what's happening in HD-43 is any more of a "mess" than any other recent appointment.

In HD-43, we have three qualified and quality candidates who have a strong ability to represent the district ably. We've got five county commissioners who asked tough, thoughtful and meaningful questions in the previous (SD-22) process - and will almost surely do so again.

Go back and look at what happened with Matt Wingard. That was an utter farce, with two candidates nominated who explicitly didn't want the appointment.

In my view, the process of making the appointment in SD-22 and HD-43 has actually been a model of making the appointment process work. Great candidates that worked hard to win the support of PCPs, a party process that respected the candidates and the PCPs, and county commissioners doing their level best to pick the best person for the job.

Ultimately, if you've strongly committed yourself to one candidate over another (and I haven't) then it's possible that your choice may not win. But that doesn't mean the process was mishandled - or "an ugly mess."

Yes, we should have special elections. But the way this has gone down so far is a model that other county parties and other county commissions should follow.

Kari, there was also Clackamas & Martha Schrader: the PCPs picked Toby Forsberg, the County Cmsrs decided they wanted Schrader. if that had been my HD, i would have been royally pissed. i'm not thrilled about PCPs picking for the rest of the electorate, either.

i disagree about how great the 22/43 process has worked. the Cogen-Collymore (and now Frederick) situation smacks of old-style cronyism, even if it isn't. would Cogen given someone with her background the same regard if she, for instance, worked for a City Cnclr? i have my doubts.

more than anything else, i hugely dislike any process that removes the decision from the electorate. yes, it sucks when they pick a Minnis or Walden, but at least it's a democratic election. this is anything but, regardless of legality. it's the wrong way to run a democracy.

"When the state, I believe at the urging of the Democratic Party- I believe Jim Klonoski was Chair- switched to this system of utilizing precinct people the main result was to have the precinct spots packed with sleeper votes to fill vacancies rather than party activists."

Prior to 1977, the law only said "The party shall appoint five nominees." Presumably, that could have meant the state or county party leadership, or any process the party constructed. In 1977 it was changed to “The precinct committeepersons of the party representing the precincts within the district who were precinct committeeperson of the precinct when the vacancy occurred shall nominate five qualified persons to fill the vacancy.” That language was still in place in 1985 when “not fewer than three nor more than five” was added, reportedly after a Republican Party nominating process resulted in only one name being forwarded. At some point since then the law was changed again, and the current language only calls for a process determined "pursuant to party rule." The law still calls for no fewer than three nor more than five nominees, and provides that the County Court or Board of Commissioners does not have to appoint from the list if it includes fewer than three.

Democratic Party rules continue to use a nominating convention in the district, as we’ve seen around the state in the past few months. State party rules don’t say how long a delegate must have been a PCP prior to a convention, so rules currently vary by county.

Much has been made of the fact that a large number of PCPs sought appointment in anticipation of the nominating conventions in SD 22 and/or HD 43. Party records show that at least 67 PCPs were elected (May 2008) PCPs in SD 22, and more than 40 of them were in HD 43 specifically.

Further, it’s also clear from Party records that a great many of recently appointed PCPs got involved in Party politics after the last Primary/PCP election via the Obama campaign, which had its own volunteer structure independent of the Party’s district and precinct structure, and then they reconnected with the Party when this appointment process arose.

The result was a HD 43 convention that was diverse in age, ethnicity, gender, economic circumstances, background and length of time participating in the Democratic Party. It was attended by nearly as many (79, representing about 26,700 HD 43 Democrats) credentialed delegates as attended the SD 22 convention (82, representing about 47,200 SD 22 Democrats). It was, to my knowledge, one of the most well attended and engaging nominating conventions that Oregon has seen, and I applaud each and every delegate for their dedication to their District.

Perhaps the process is not perfect, but the engagement of folks who actually reside in the District and take a definitive interest in their District's representation is a vastly better structural arrangement than what most states have: a process of strict appointment.

The argument for special elections has its merits, but even setting costs aside, the chronology is heavily problematic. Under the identical timeline, the ultimate replacement in HD 43 would have little or no time to actually prepare for the important February Session. And while legislators could possibly adjust the timing of their resignations accordingly, they have little say over the timing of potential job opportunities and no say over the timing of illness or death. The nomination process is designed to swift, while at the same time, representative and fair.

Ultimately, the improvement of the existing system lies with us, the voters within our Districts and within our Parties. If you care enough to pay attention, to read the comments here, and to post comments yourself, than you care enough to become a PCP.

KC Hanson Chair, Multnomah County Democrats

ack.. can't get out of my own way with typos.. read "...designed to be swift."

Sure Nick, it's a logical construct, but I'll have to hear that this actually occurs with enough frequency to be a problem before I'll agree that it's worth worrying about.

Fair point, but it's hard for me to say without having gone to 6 different meetings of 4 different county parties around the state this year. The only thing I have to go off of is TA's account a few weeks ago of the Multnomah County Dems meeting immediately before the SD-22 appointment, when he said they had 2-3 times the normal attendance because 70 or so people wanted to sign up as PCPs. There were 82 votes in the 1st round of the SD-22 convention. That's pretty damning, and if it happened there, I'm sure it's happened elsewhere.

Another thing that disturbs me about some of the discussion that has taken place on this subject here on BlueOregon, is that some commenters have slammed some of the commissioners based on speculation about what they might do because they can. I’d rather think, unless proven otherwise, that they will understand the nuances of this rather odd role and make an appropriate decision.

This role calls for each of them to vote not on behalf of a district he or she lives in and represents, and not on behalf of the county at large, but on behalf of over 38,000 registered voters in House District 43. That’s different from their usual duty, and seems to call for them to seek evidence of the preference of those voters as at least one factor, an important one, in their decisions.

The County Board should not be a rubber stamp though, and they are carrying out a great deal of appropriate due diligence. If that process leads them to believe the Democrats in the district were wrong or a poor representation of the district as a whole, they should vote accordingly and explain their votes.

TA:

Recently, Nick Wirth had a well researched, articulate article about the need for a change in the way replacements are selected. You should have left it at that. You're article is rife with problems and appears to be nothing more than a poorly researched rant. Your omission that you are supporting Lew in this race is a disservice to Lew and Blue Oregon's readers.

This is no mess. This is a wonderful situation. I've been involved in the legislative process for a long time and I think any of these three would do a great job. How's that a mess?

Oh, and by the way, do you even live in the district? I looked at the list of PCP's and your name doesn't appear.

"This is no mess. This is a wonderful situation. I've been involved in the legislative process for a long time and I think any of these three would do a great job. How's that a mess?"

Bingo. It's hard to review the candidates under consideration and call it a mess in the slightest. It's a happy problem, is what it is.

"Posted by: Jesse Cornett | Oct 21, 2009 2:06:30 PM

Oh, and by the way, do you even live in the district? I looked at the list of PCP's and your name doesn't appear."

Well we know for a fact you don't live in the district Jesse. So I would not be throwing that stone around in your glass abode. Just sayin'

Jesse lived in the district until a couple of months ago.

KC wrote: If that process leads them to believe the Democrats in the district were wrong or a poor representation of the district as a whole, they should vote accordingly and explain their votes.

Of course, that almost certainly WON'T happen. While the county commission is within its power to reject all three candidates and forward the decision to the Governor (who could appoint anyone he wants), I can't remember the last time that happened - and can't imagine that's going to happen this time, with the three very strong candidates forwarded by the PCPs.

Jeez.

If this is a "mess", I'm curious as to how you'd characterize what went on with Matt Wingard. THAT was a sham process that I witnessed in person and can legitimately called a "mess". This is a candidate rich process in which three amazing people who would all be good candidates for the job are under consideration.

This is an embarrassment of riches in an open process where everything is visible. Everybody in the process knows Karol works for Cogen. Everybody in the process knows that Lew has friends among the PCPs and probably among the other Commissioners. All this squabbling over it is ridiculous and petty.

I am sincerely wondering what the point of this post is. It doesn't help Lew at all, unfortunately. And I think that's probably the intent behind it, even though Todd doesn't disclose his full-throated support of Lew.

Cogen has no real conflict of interest here..any more than do the other Commissioners who are good friends with Lew. If we're going to ask people to recuse themselves if they have a good friendship or working relationship with the candidates, then we'll be looking at a pretty thin slate or no ability to vote. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculously stupid-especially given that the whole thing is out in the open.

This petty and silly squabble should stop now.

"Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 21, 2009 2:38:38 PM Jesse lived in the district until a couple of months ago."

Really? I didn't think that Senate District 24 (which Jesse ran for not long ago) somehow included House District 43, which I am pretty sure is part of Senate District 22.

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 21, 2009 2:41:58 PM I am sincerely wondering what the point of this post is. It doesn't help Lew at all, unfortunately.

Because perhaps, despite your claim otherwise, that isn't the intent of it (helping Lew).

Really? I didn't think that Senate District 24 (which Jesse ran for not long ago) somehow included House District 43, which I am pretty sure is part of Senate District 22.

You are correct about which districts are where. It's still true that Jesse lived in House District 43 until a few months ago.

Bob, you realize that in some districts, that means fewer than 10 PCPs would be making the decision----which is worse than 79 PCPs and then 5 Commissioners,in my mind.

True, which is why I didn't support it. I'm not unhappy with the current system. But just to point out, if that change were made, the county commissioners, if they felt it needed to be done, could refuse the full list and punt the decision to the Governor.

I have to disagree with you Bob and Mel, I think that limiting the vote to PCPs who have actually put in the hard work would be better than the current system. Clearly I'm on the record in favor of special elections. But the fact is that the point of an appointment process is not to ensure that a large number of people have their voices heard. The reason that PCPs have a say in the process is to ensure that the final candidates are supported by the party, so that they do not end up tipping the partisan or ideological scales in the legislature without having been democratically elected. It is not to ensure that the candidates have broad public support, if that was the objective then we would clearly hold a special election. The current system allows for anybody who shows up to represent the party, which I think is unfair to the people who actually put in the effort. It also allows for anyone who puts in a minimum amount of effort to give their vote a disproportionate amount of influence over the result. If your neighbor was able to make their vote count more than yours during an election, you would call it electoral fraud, but for whatever reason people seem more accepting of it when it comes to appointments. If we are going to keep the appointment process, we should ensure that the PCP vote does what it is intended to do; represent the party, not necessarily the broader electorate.

Because perhaps, despite your claim otherwise, that isn't the intent of it (helping Lew).>

Well if that's the case, then this post is all the more puzzling and bizarre.

Any talk of where I own a house now versus three years ago and three weeks ago versus today is a red herring.

"Posted by: Jesse Cornett | Oct 21, 2009 5:05:54 PM Any talk of where I own a house now versus three years ago and three weeks ago versus today is a red herring."

I see. So when someone carpetbags for office, then challenges someone for writing a piece on this blog if they live in the district (which TA had clearly stated numerous times that he has no vote in this at all since he doesn't live in the district) ...pointing out, that said person might be not be the best one to throw such stones is just a red herring?

Glad we cleared up what is a red herring... or did we?

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Oct 21, 2009 3:19:58 PM Well if that's the case, then this post is all the more puzzling and bizarre.

So discussing the flaws in the current appointment process to fill vacancies in the legislature is puzzling and bizarre?

Charlie, do you have reason to believe i do not care about Karol? where do you get off making that kind of judgemental statement about what i do or do not think? i do not post bullshit, Charlie; i actually do care that this process may reflect badly on her thru no fault of her own.

you do understand that appearances matter, right?

Carla, i'm sorry for being petty & silly. should i run my thoughts past you first to ensure they are sufficiently meaningful?

Jesse, i've made it clear that i do not live in the district (nor do any of the commissioners). i've also made it clear my concern is the process -- and while it's great that there are 3 excellent choices for the seat, what if there were not? what if instead of Karol it was some cretin "we" all loathed but whom 3 commissioners were willing to elevate to office? just because we have a good outcome to this does not mean this isn't a mess. "this" is not the 3 choices; "this" is a process that takes away from voters their right to pick their elected officials.

or is it stupid to think 5 non-constituents are better situated to make this choice than the residents of the district?

So discussing the flaws in the current appointment process to fill vacancies in the legislature is puzzling and bizarre?

What apparently gets some people's knickers bunched in the extremely low threshold of "flaw" is puzzling and bizarre, yes.

Carla, i'm sorry for being petty & silly. should i run my thoughts past you first to ensure they are sufficiently meaningful?

That would be your call, not mine, Todd.

But when you post something like this--which is in fact petty and silly--you're going to hear about it.

If TA pointed out that he didn't live in the district in this post, I missed it. But missing things isn't hard in a rant. He didn't disclose his endorsement of Lew either. He doesn't think the PCP's and county commission are qualified to make the decision on a replacement, but sure doesn't hesitate in trying to influence their decision.

I've lived in Portland for 15 years, in my five homes in that time, I've owned four and there's not more than 10 miles that separates them. I ran for office in 2006. I was in Salem on filing day when it became apparent the incumbent would not be running for re-election and because I had lived in the district for quite a while, I was eligible to run. After a stint in inner NE, I remembered why I liked outer Portland and we now live back in the same Senate district and have no plans to run for office so don't believe everything you read in Willamette Week. By the way, I bristled far more at being called a lobbyist than I ever did at being called a carpetbagger. Of course, I was a lobbyist and not a carpetbagger.

Carla - "in fact"? seriously? what you say is a fact?

Charlie, i apoligize for advocating for a broader, more democratic process. that would harm no one but Bush and Karzai. candidates i favor have nothing to fear from democracy.

TA: yes, I think so. Petty and silly. The Committee met and voted. Sorry dude.

ah. The Committee. that changes things. you leave me no option but to get violent & brutal. yes: i am sending in the lawyers.

you asked for it.

Conner, it appears typepad.com cut out part of your post. i believe the missing text is "...in my opinion."

don't worry. that's been happening to a number of people today. it almost looks as if people are declaring themselves Arbiters of Truth, but we know that could not possibly be the case. clearly it's a software malfunction.

gosh, LT, thanks. i never would have figured that. it's so good we have your expertise available to us. gosh. what a relief. now i won't make a stupid mistake like expressing my fucking opinion on a fucking blog. that would be just silly.

It's my opinion, Todd. But if you're trying to cut down on the petty points, this isn't getting the job done.

It seems to me that there is MUCH to complain about with regard to the general process for filling legislative vacancies. Many folks have many different suggestions for reforming that process.

On that score, TA, I think you're dead right -- and I think most folks here would agree with you.

Where you've gone off the rails, and the reason why so many people are ticked off, is that you've suggested that the problems with the state law somehow reflect poorly on one of the candidates.

What, exactly, is Karol Collymore supposed to do about the process as mandated by state law? She wants to serve in the legislature. She lives where she lives and she works where she works. There's absolutely nothing to be done about that now.

Are you suggesting she shouldn't have run? Are you suggesting that she should have been disqualified?

Out of a half dozen or so candidates, Karol was selected among the top three nominees by the county party - so at least those folks think she's qualified. Maybe the county commission will select her; maybe they won't.

But the bottom line is that as flawed as the process may be, it's the process. And it doesn't reflect poorly on the qualifications or ethics of any of the participants.

<h2>TA -- I want to draw your attention to the comment by Jack Roberts on the other thread, over here.</h2>