Willamette Weak: From the Mixed-Up Files of Mr. Nigel J. Jaquiss
Eileen Brady, co-founder of New Seasons Market
By Russ Casler of Portland, Oregon. Russ is an aide to Rep. Chris Garrett. Last summer, he worked for Eileen Brady's campaign for Mayor. He speaks only for himself.
In an article titled "Extra Seasoning: Records Raise Questions About Eileen Brady's New Seasons Résumé," published in the January 18th edition of Willamette Week, local journalist Nigel Jaquiss investigates the role that mayoral candidate Eileen Brady played in the founding of Portland's landmark grocery chain, New Seasons Market, alongside her husband, Brian Rohter, and "two other families and many friends."
Mr. Jaquiss, whose previous articles I have read and generally respected for their thorough vetting, makes several dubious assertions in this exposé which deserve redress. His own investigation reveals answers to the initial questions he raises, yet he fails (intentionally or otherwise) to come to the most basic conclusions; Ms. Brady's true role in New Seasons' founding left seemingly in doubt.
First, let me start with Ms. Brady's own disclaimer: "I was never on the payroll." Ms. Brady later clarifies in her response to the article:
"Like many couples who launch start-up businesses, we did it at our kitchen table, and one of us (me) kept a day job while the other (Brian) took on the full-time role."
But as Mr. Jaquiss rightly points out, the term "co-founder" is a nebulous one. So let's look at how Ms. Brady defines her role: "she conducted focus groups, acted as company spokeswoman, wrote the New Seasons’ employee manual, established the company’s health insurance program and even helped edit headlines and copy for the store’s ads." These responsibilities were a natural extension of Ms. Brady's experience as HR Director of Nature's Fresh Northwest prior to the formation of New Seasons.
It's critical to point out at this point that these claims by Ms. Brady are never refuted in the article.
To the contrary, past New Seasons' employees and Mr. Rohter, New Seasons' previous CEO, confirm her significance. Even Lisa Sedlar, New Seasons' current CEO, stated "New Seasons would not be New Seasons if Eileen had not contributed so greatly."
Mr. Jaquiss remains silent on this, and instead changes tack and focuses on Ms. Brady's financial involvement in New Seasons' founding viz. the limited corporate financial records available to the public (New Seasons remains a privately held company). OLCC filings "show just three original investors in the business: Stan Amy, Chuck Eggert and Rohter." Mr. Rohter explains that the omission of Ms. Brady's name was intended "to shield Brady from any potential liability should New Seasons fail. He says he always considered any money he put into the company a joint investment with his wife, and says most of their initial investment came from her savings." This is just a savvy business move. If New Seasons went under and incurred substantial debt, Ms. Brady's personal (and, by extension, part of their family's) assets would be protected.
Mr. Jaquiss then quibbles with Ms. Brady's assertion that she and Mr. Rohter "risked [their] entire life savings…to start New Seasons Market," citing the couple's initial investment of $220,000 relative to net assets totaling $712,000. I'm guessing Mr. Jaquiss never took BA 101 in college, or he would have learned that the majority of most Americans' net assets are tied up in their home. Subtract additional considerations for investments locked into retirement or college funds, coupled with a nominal checking account, and it's not unreasonable to deduce that their savings amounted to roughly $220,000. This sum translated to 11% of the entire initial investment to found New Seasons Market, "a figure [Rohter] and Brady say grew over the years."
So let me ask this:
If someone invests their not-insignificant life savings into a company's genesis, designs that company's employee manual, establishes that company's benefits package, works on early advertising and copy for the company, and acts as the company's representative/spokesperson for several years -- if that person is NOT considered one of said company's co-founders, Mr. Jaquiss, who is?
I understand it's difficult to sell newspapers these days, I really do. People don't want mundane truth, they demand controversy and catchy headlines -- so-called "gotcha journalism." In such an environment, it can be very tempting to cut corners in the pursuit of a lead. But it doesn't give Mr. Jaquiss the right to spin fictions and print quasi-libelous claims about a local small business owner. It's irresponsible and lazy at best, and at worst, as Mr. Rohter implies, it suggests an undercurrent of sexism.
Would we be asking these questions if the founding CEO had been a woman, her husband instrumental in their company's founding (though retaining his day job to ensure a stable income as their new project got started) and claiming that experience as part of his résumé for public office? I doubt it.
Sorry, Nigel, but you should know better.
|
Jan. 19, 2012
Posted in guest column. |
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
1:21 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
I read the WW article yesterday and cringed. As I wrote on FB where I read the article it the text had so many "appears" and unsubstantiated conclusions it was just a darned awful piece.
So here's a true story about starting a business. My parents dreamed up their small business on the kitchen table. My mother worked the day shift at the new business and my father worked his regular day job and then put in a short night shift of 4 hours when he could. My parents did the books together, contacted vendors and made all marketing decisions together usually again at their kitchen table. I was nine years old and had a basic understanding that both of my parents were committed to building what became a successful small business. At no time did I ever think my father wasn't a co-founder of their business.
Sorry, Nigel you not only should know better you actually managed to insult a great many families who sacrificed every thing to start a business.
I even smelled a whiff of sexism in his inartful understanding of the contributions each spouse makes to realize their dream. Would Nigel have written the same article if the candidate were a man?
2:32 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Paulie, there is a difference between a family business like what your parents did and a business with multiple partners and investors. Once you bring in investors that file their own tax returns much changes. That is not to say that the spouses and others did not help out.
11:45 a.m.
Jan 20, '12
"I even smelled a whiff of sexism..."
I don't smell it from Nigel J., but I definitely smell it from Rohter (as others have pointed out).
It would be sexist if Nigel called Brady a bored millionaire's wife and a dilettante. But he stopped well short of that.
1:37 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
The sexism comment is ridiculous--we can ask Rob Cornilles about his misstatements regarding his business, but not Ms. Brady? And shielding a supposedly capable businesswoman from risk doesn't sound savvy, it sounds a little paternalistic.
But the point is not whether a good definition of "founder" is reached. The point is whether basing one's campaign primarily on responsibility and entrepreneurship, at an entity where you held neither responsibilities nor had any entrepreneurial risk, is a valid basis for a campaign. Creating jobs and making payrolls would be the task of those who had the responsibility to do so.
And as a side note, there sure is a lot of urgent pushback happening over an article that's apparently "much ado about nothing."
1:50 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Mark/TA --
I'm wondering about your comment that Brady "held neither responsibilities nor had any entrepreneurial risk".
As the Jaquiss article makes clear, she invested $220,000 of her money; and as an investor/co-founder was serving as the spokesperson, the marketing director and the HR director. Those roles weren't filled by full-time staff until several years after the company was founded.
How is that not having any responsibility nor taking any risk?
Full disclosure: My firm built Eileen Brady's campaign website. I speak only for myself.
2:17 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
As far as the law is concerned, she didn't invest a dime, because she's not listed as an investor (based on what I understood from the piece). Rohter makes clear he intentionally shielded her from risk. If NS went belly up and the officers were charged with fraud and civil suits were pending aplenty, Ms. Brady could simply walk away from it all. That's not having any risk. If one of her decisions during that time had gone horribly bad, how could she be held accountable? She had no titles to strip, no salary to reduce, no consequences of any kind. That's not having responsibility, strictly speaking.
The point is that we're trying to evaluate fitness for executive office. Executive office involves formal responsibility, and lots of internal and external risk. So the intent in examining the NS record is to evaluate how that experience qualifies one for Mayor. Perhaps you think it does. Fair enough.
3:07 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
She had no titles to strip, no salary to reduce, no consequences of any kind. That's not having responsibility, strictly speaking.
You're right. Putting at risk a quarter-million bucks of your own money is totally no big deal.
Life must be good, Mark.
4:17 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
So if I buy $200,000 worth of lottery tickets, based on the monetary risk I incurred, that's a qualification for office?
According to filings it wasn't her money; she'd given a gift to her husband. It was Rphter's money when it was invested...otherwise she'd legally be required to be listed as an investor, yes? She was out the money the minute she handed it over, as far as the business was concerned. Any returns would be by the grace of her husband--as he intended, apparently.
9:57 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
According to filings it wasn't her money; she'd given a gift to her husband.
On the law and the accounting, you are wrong.
They were married. Legally speaking, there is zero difference between her income and assets and his income and assets.
You've lost all perspective. Again.
(Jeff Merkley was totally a corporate sell-out, right?)
10:52 a.m.
Jan 20, '12
Whether they're married or not, according to the state she had no money invested in the business. That was verified by Rohter, who said she was intentionally shielded from investor risk. If you're saying it IS specifically her money invested, then there are some potentially serious problems with the documents filed.
But hey, nice try at the ad hominem. It's not the facts, it's me.
11:54 a.m.
Jan 25, '12
Mark, it was other assets she had that were shielded from investor risk, apparently. If we were to delve into the Brady/Rohter family finances, it looks as if we would find that assets were divided in some way to shield some of them from the exposure that partnership creates. If so that would make Kari's marital property argument wrong I suppose, but not the underlying human relationships. Eileen Brady, whom I do not support for mayor, had a lot of skin in the game of founding New Seasons and I don't object to her claim and do think that Jaquiss, like you, is splitting hairs. Your motives are clearer than his.
5:21 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
that's "TJ" Kari. i'm T.A.
11:38 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Oops!
1:48 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
What I found most interesting about the WWeek piece is the tidbit that Rohter cashed out of New Seasons in 2009 for a healthy $11.2 million, while at the same time negotiating a sale of a majority stake in the business to a private capital firm.
Not only is Brady the million-dollar candidate, she is herself a multi-millionaire.
2:49 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Right. She came to Portland as a single mom with two kids. She worked for $5 an hour in a grocery store. (She's not alone. I have a few friends that have started their careers that way.)
And then, through hard work and ingenuity, she (and others) built a business that provides a good service to the public. And does so with strong progressive values - like health care benefits for every employee (even those working just one shift) and for those employees' families, including domestic partners.
Isn't that something we should consider a good thing?
There was a fascinating piece on NPR this week about Mitt Romney and his wealth - asking why he was taking so many hits (unlike Nelson Rockefeller or John Kennedy). The key quote, from Robert Frank, author of Richistan:
Mitt Romney was a vulture on the economy, ripping value out of the communities were he became involved.
By contrast, Eileen Brady and the New Seasons Market team have added value to this community - creating jobs, providing benefits, and building a business that does a lot to move local and organic products to market.
I don't see much to criticize on this score.
3:07 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
The trope about "creating jobs" has been repeated so often, it's not even questioned. That's not a surprise, since most people don't understand basic economics.
Think about it: Did New Seasons (or Nature's) add net jobs to the Portland economy? Most likely not, as grocery spending and employment are typically very flat historically.
Yes, the stores Brady worked at and held ownership in hired people, but the revenue that paid for these jobs was not new grocery revenue in the local economy. It came at the expense of revenue at other stores.
Stores like Albertson's, Safeway and Fred Meyer, where, coincidentally, most staff have the protections afforded by collective bargaining.
Unless you can cite a sustained net increase in grocery jobs per capita in Portland that correlates to Nature's/New Seasons store openings, the "job creation" claim is specious.
What we're really talking about is the conversion of union jobs to non-union jobs.
If that's progressive, I'll have to come up with another word to describe my political beliefs.
3:58 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
The fact that New Seasons is local did add jobs to the Portland economy that are not there at Safeway or Albertsons. Those companies are headquartered elsewhere and the corporate functions of accounting, legal, personnel, etc. are elsewhere. You can make the point that no retail or non-traded goods or services company ever really creates jobs because they just take it away from some other retailer, etc. Obviously that is not true over time.
4:57 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
A handful of upper management and administrative jobs is a lot different than a couple thousand line-level jobs, which is the implied claim. You're grasping at straws if that's all you've got.
Of course all of the "job creator" nonsense just obscures the real question: How does whatever Brady did vis-a-vis New Seasons/Nature's translate into public policy that actually spurs job growth in Portland? There's really no relation, at least not if understand basic economics and you're honest about it.
It really just comes down to GOP talking points about understanding business and blah blah blah. But it's different, because Brady's "progressive!" (Yeah, right.)
7:48 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Doesn't your point assume that the population of the Portland Metro area remained static during New Seasons' creation and expansion? The assumption is implicit that
Have a significant number of Kroger (Fred Meyers) and Safeway stores closed or laid off large numbers of people to cover their business losses to New Seasons?
12:01 p.m.
Jan 25, '12
Well, the New Seasons on SE Tacoma used to be a Thriftway and before that Kenow's (sp?) a more local small chain, not sure if they were unionized.
The New Seasons on Hawthorne replaces an older and funkier health food store in the same vicinity, now gone.
The Trader Joe's on SE Cesar E Chavez used to be a bad-smelling Albertson's. This is only relevant to the market turnover argument.
10:04 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Steve: The whole question of how the public should account for "job creation" effects from public policy and private action is a good one.
The Oregon House Republicans, for example, have put out a "jobs plan" that would hack away at state government, give giant tax breaks, and then claims the "jobs created" from the tax breaks without counting the "jobs killed" from the state government cuts.
So, yeah, it's complicated.
But I think it's worth noting that the whole New Seasons Market concept is dependent upon high-touch customer service. That's why there's always someone around to help customers. That's why there's rarely long lines at the check stands. (I've never stood around waiting for someone to show up at my local NSM, but happens all the time at Safeway and Fred's.)
I have no idea, but I'm guessing the ratio of employees to customers at New Seasons has to be double or even triple most other local grocery stores.
So does NSM shift customers away from other grocers? Yes.
But does it also create jobs? It has to. And that's not even counting the fact that the headquarters - and all those administrative jobs - are here in Portland, instead of Cincinnati, OH or Pleasanton, CA.
And that's not even counting the fact that they've built a market for local meat, produce, and other markets that clearly far exceeds what the big multinational grocery firms do.
11:27 a.m.
Jan 20, '12
"But does it also create jobs? It has to."
Show me the numbers. Economics is empirical. Hand waving is meaningless.
5:21 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
I think that's the point I was trying to make... Show Me The Numbers that grocery purchases remained static during the period that New Seasons came online.
Show Me The Numbers that New Seasons simply replaced jobs at other markets because if that's not the case then they did IN FACT create new jobs.
I don't know whether I'm voting for Brady or Smith yet, but I'm really tired of some of the sloppiness of the criticisms I see leveled at her.
5:29 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
we do recognize that portland's population keeps growing & that NS is one of the businesses providing jobs for people -- and some of the better jobs for people without high-end skills? when we protest the Walmarts & the big boxes, isn't NS one of the businesses we think of as a local alternative?
someone was going to fill the grocery niche in Pdx. Eileen et al made sure it was NS, and she made sure the jobs that were provided paid well & had medical benefits for ALL employees.
5:27 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
i was working for Wild Oats when New Seasons got started; i had been part-time at Nature & got passed along to WO. part of the reason people like Brian & Stan Amy started NS (so went the industry scuttlebutt back then) was in protest to Wild Oats (which was a really crappy corporation & deserved to go belly-up and be eaten by Whole Foods).
was Nature's unionized? nope. i don't recall that stopping people from loving them. is People's Co-op unionized? that would also be a no -- and, as most food co-ops do, it uses "free" labor to replace paid workers. yes, it's a different story in a co-op (i've been a member, a worker & a board member in various food co-ops), but the point is: NOT unionized.
but because Eileen (for whose campaign i work part-time) & Brian have been an American success story & gotten rich, she's a bad guy? she's not hiding her money in the Caymans, and she's not riding the gravy train. she's putting her ass on the line running for mayor. i suppose that's for the wealth & the glory that have always been part of the job.
1:00 p.m.
Jan 24, '12
TA, I don't see what the utility is in bringing up the Peoples' Co-op here. But even if there were any utility, your comments are factually wrong. The co-op does not rely on free labor. In fact, it employs full-time, paid employees in a collective management structure. While this means employees work on a consensus basis as a team, in no way does it mean anyone's working for free. This is the same sort of nonsense people like to gin up in arguments over union vs. worker-owned.
Full disclosure: I volunteer with Friends of Trees, work within 300 feet of the Oregon House of Representatives and sometimes shop at New Seasons. I have not supported nor endorsed any candidate in this race and am quite frankly appalled at the lack of substance in the campaigns for Portland's next mayor. I would appreciate it if the petty sniping could give way to genuine discussions about the future of our city.
3:55 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Kari--all valid points.
I actually think Steve below me makes a very good observation. A grocery store is different from a lot of other types of businesses, in that there is a ceiling to the amount of groceries that an individual is going to buy. When people shift their grocery buying to a new store, that subtracts that economic activity from another, existing store.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but the presence and growth of New Seasons has certainly come at some expense to other grocery chains, most of which in the Portland area employ union workers.
10:17 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Logan -- First, great to see you tonight.
Second, I support unions. But the reason I support unions is because they create better wages, benefits, and working conditions for workers.
I'm honestly ignorant here -- can you share an example of a way in which New Seasons Market employees have worse wages, benefits, or working conditions than, say, Fred Meyer's?
11:30 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Just came across this very long and anonymous comment over at Willamette Week. If it's all accurate, it paints a pretty good picture of how NSM treats their employees. (I added bullets for readability.)
11:39 a.m.
Jan 20, '12
Way to stick to the campaign script, Kari. The ol' "I love unions, but..."
I can't believe we have to do "Collective Bargaining 101" here.
Unions aren't just about wages, benefits and working conditions. Unions are fundamentally about workplace democracy.
Without unions, there is no protection for seniority, or from capricious management decisions on promotions, firings and discipline, which can easily be based on race, religion, gender, age, etc.
Anecdotes from happy NSM employees, no matter how many you dig up, do not speak to this. Beneficiaries of so called "meritocracy" (frequently generously seasoned with elements of ass-kiss-ocracy) are its greatest proponents.
But this is all moot anyway, since Brady was never on the NSM payroll or board and currently holds less than 1% ownership stake.
3:08 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Kari, that anonymous laundry list of comparisons was not worth re-posting and adds nothing to the conversation. It could have been written by a campaign staffer or an anti-union schill, and it includes vague and unsubstantiated statements like "one store promoted nice people, the other had jerks."
Your disclaimer of "if it's accurate, then..." really doesn't cut it. If you don't know for sure that it's accurate, then why reformat it and repost it on your own blog? Reposting it means you are validating it.
I understand that you're defending your client, but I also think that if you want us as readers to hold your comments in high esteem even as your income depends on these candidates, then you need to be more disciminating about the value of their content.
Also, though this comment may sound harsh, you know I really like you and the work you do, so nothing personal. You probably know that when there are unsubstantiated digs at unions, it ruffles my feathers, just as attacks on Eileen ruffle yours...
11:41 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Yeah, I made sure to note that it was anonymous.
But it was also chock-full of specifics (along with some rough opinions). I'm confident that if the hard facts in there are flat wrong, someone will correct them.
11:43 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Oh, and who is making "digs at unions", unsubstantiated or otherwise? Haven't seen any here...
A bunch of digs at management in that long anonymous post, but not the union.
12:04 p.m.
Jan 21, '12
Specifics that would carry weight with me would be bullet points that someone credible had put together with two things in hand: a Fred Meyer employee handbook and a New Seasons handbook.
2:10 p.m.
Jan 21, '12
A worthy assignment! I'll suggest that to our contributors...
1:14 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Kari--
Great to see you too.
I'll start with the disclaimer that my first job, much like Eileen, was working in a grocery store for around minimum wage. I pushed carts at Fred Meyer all during my time in college, and was a member and shop steward for UFCW 555.
I think Steve pretty much covered this in his response to you, but to reiterate:
Someone could probably write a book in answer to your question. But I'll keep it brief.
Unions are not simply about the details of the contract--they're about the right to have that contract in the first place, and the rights that the contract represents. As Steve said, it's about workplace democracy.
Union workers have the right to due process and union representation in disciplinary matters. Non-union workers are "at-will" employees who can be fired or otherwise disciplined at any time, for almost any reason.
Furthermore, at New Seasons, nothing prevents the private capital firm who now owns a majority stake of the company from implementing across-the-board wage and benefit cuts, with no input from the workers.
If New Seasons wanted to cut everybody's salary down to minimum wage, they could it tomorrow. The workers would have zero rights in that situation.
For workers with a union contract, any wage and benefit changes that management wants to impose must be bargained, with input from the workers. Workers in non-union shops like New Seasons have no such protection.
Further, if a manager at New Seasons wanted to target a specific employee for a wage and benefit cut, they could do that. Union workers are protected from the ability of management to single people out, or play favorites.
I can't speak to the wages and working conditions at New Seasons. But I can say that the workers there have FAR fewer rights and protections than workers at a unionized grocery store.
1:51 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Those are all fair points. The contractual protections afforded by a union contract are important.
That said, I've been reacting to folks who've been arguing that New Seasons Market is some kind of evil-doer in the marketplace.
I don't think that's accurate. From everything I've heard, they treat their workers very well. And I think they should be commended for that, not criticized for it.
1:55 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
To me, a big part of this issue is that she claims a huge part in the business - and the title of "co-founder" - all the while not being listed on paperwork filed with the OLCC. Paperwork she should have been listed on by law if she was involved at the level she claims. So either you weren't involved or you broke the law when filing the OLCC paperwork. Which is it?
The problem is that they created the situation themselves. On one hand they claim a huge involvement, co-founder status, etc. On the other hand they tell the state that she isn't involved and doesn't need to be listed on the OLCC paperwork. You can't have it both ways.
5:34 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
you're right. there should be a checkbox for "My spouse may run for public office one day; please be sure to include his/her name as an official founder of this business."
are you paying the slightest attention? by having the paperwork include the least financially vulnerable member of the family, they protect their further assets. this is evil? please feel free to lie to us & tell us how you'd gladly & unnecessarily risk your family's future for no good reason at all.
6:25 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
It has nothing to do with running for office, it has to do with the law. The paperwork specifically requires that everyone be listed, regardless of whether you want to shield them or not. Leaving them off is illegal, can cost you a lot of money, and get your liquor license revoked. This isn't about politics, campaigns, etc., it is about the law and what that form required. That form doesn't let you pick and choose who should be listed, it says everyone. No exceptions.
11:46 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
I don't recommend assuming that a couple of sentences and an out-of-context quote in a WW article gives you a rounded picture of the relevant law and the facts at issue.
11:07 a.m.
Jan 23, '12
Do the comments from OCLC this morning as reported by WW, give us a more rounded picture? Because they believe anyone who is substantially involved in operational decisionmaking for the licensed business, should be licensed.
2:03 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
And for the record, I don't think self-identifying as "co-founder" is unreasonable at all, and it's clear there was a lot of work done off the books, so to speak, that significantly contributed to the growth and success of New Seasons. And while I may think the shielding comment has some paternalistic qualities to it, there's no question Ms. Brady is a highly capable businesswoman, for-profit or non-. Work at EcoTrust, Nature's Northwest and in her tech economy life all speak to that. But those haven't been made the centerpiece of the campaign, NS has. So I think it's valid to examine the implications of her role(s) in that particular business.
2:13 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Subtract additional considerations for investments locked into retirement or college funds, coupled with a nominal checking account, and it's not unreasonable to deduce that their savings amounted to roughly $220,000.
Certainly, if you subtract most of the assets and investments, you can massage the numbers to be smaller.
But life savings, in Economics 101 and as any financial advisor will tell you, means your assets, whether you've converted them to real estate or put them aside for other long-term expenses. (For example Senator Merkley took out a $250,000 mortgage on his home to fund his campaign).
It was a boatload of money, and a big risk. But it clearly wasn't their entire life savings, but 31% of them. If she claimed "we put all our cash on hand into the business" that'd be fine. But as it is, her story is an overstatement.
2:28 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
It's funny to see the Brady camp get so defensive about this minor piece. It seems like the race is Brady's to lose, what with a couple of feckless opponents and an evidently bottomless war chest.
Dig the language, like "gotcha journalism." Do they really think they need to resort to the Sarah Palin defense? It says something about character to get so defensive when called out on duplicity.
1:00 p.m.
Jan 24, '12
Ordinarily I wouldn't respond to trolls, but this comment caught my eye. You'll notice, Steve, that I used the phrase "so-called 'gotcha journalism'." Like you, I'm not enamored with that phrase (or it's notorious origin), but for better or worse it has entered the public's lexicon to describe a kind of cheap journalism. In this case, it describes Mr. Jaquiss's intent on pursuing a hypothesis – that Ms. Brady is lying by calling herself a co-founder of New Seasons – in the face of significant evidence to the contrary (that he himself uncovers).
If you prefer I call it a "hatchet piece" instead of "so-called 'gotcha journalism'" I have no problem with that.
2:45 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
The issue that Brady supporters speaking here seem to miss is that she has implied more to the public than is now apparent. I listened to her pitch and got the distinct impression that she was an officer in the company with a strategic role and that she and her husband were the major investors. In hindsight it is clear that she never said that she was more than she claimed, but only because I now have context I did not have before. For those who always knew the story there would be no dissonance.
I like Eileen and have no doubt that she added value to New Seasons based upon the testimony of many who were there. She and her husband clearly took a big risk when they invested a big portion of their net worth and together they created a wonderful institution. Now that the WW story is out all of us have more context for understanding her contribution and risk.
5:36 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
how do you have more context, John? there was almost no substance in the article.
3:30 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
Mark writes: there sure is a lot of urgent pushback happening over an article that's apparently "much ado about nothing."
Steve writes: It's funny to see the Brady camp get so defensive about this minor piece.
First, I'm not sure there's a lot of "urgent pushback". Eileen wrote a letter to the editor at WW, and there was an email to her supporters. I'd say that's a perfectly calibrated amount of response. This item, by a former staffer, was unsolicited by the campaign.
Second, it's basic Campaigns 101 to make sure you respond to every accusation or insinuation. Even if the story looks like ridiculous bulls--t. Has it been that long since John Kerry and the Swiftboats?
Even on face value, this article isn't anything near as damning as that stuff; but John Kerry isn't finishing out his second term as president today in part because his team thought those accusations were so ridiculous that they wouldn't bother setting the record straight.
4:43 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
The elephant in the room, though is the idea that government should be "run like a business" or emulate "my family budget". Both are simplistic in the extreme and largely inaccurate. Beyond personnel management, there are few similarities, and we've all bought into "common sense" which happens in this case, to be libertarian in nature, when we argue on "their" turf.
10:06 p.m.
Jan 19, '12
The elephant in the room, though is the idea that government should be "run like a business" or emulate "my family budget". Both are simplistic in the extreme and largely inaccurate.
Agreed. Good thing I've never heard Eileen Brady claim any such thing.
The closest she's ever come is saying that the Portland development services folks ought to be more customer-service oriented.
To borrow an example from a friend, it's completely ridiculous that a bar owner has to bring a copy of his OLCC license to get certain kinds of permits - and then show that same paperwork AGAIN just weeks later when seeking another permit. That sort of basic data should be stored in a database somewhere. There's no reason to make small businesses run in circles, and there's no reason to have city staffers wasting their time running in circles either.
It's conservatives who want to make government work less efficiently. As progressives, we should be demanding that government work as efficiently as possible, making as big a difference as possible with the dollars available (while fighting to make more dollars available.)
6:29 a.m.
Jan 20, '12
I don't believe there is any question regarding Ms. Brady's participation in the Development of New Seasons Market the business. I believe one of the big questions is whether that actually qualifies her for the top executive position in our city. One of the aspects of running a business is how you conduct interviews and make decisions about hiring teams of people. Did she sit in on many interviews and was she consulted? That would be an important part of the job and I have not heard it mentioned.
From interviews I have heard and read she appears to be most concerned with Business and Jobs. In fact when asked the Top three priorities she would focus on, she said Jobs, jobs, and jobs. That is truly spoken like a businessperson. No mention of east Portland, growing gang violence, police shootings, CRC....etc.She talks of streamlining certain elements within the city and I am leery of these statements sometimes because they sound a bit like Chamber of Commerce ideas.
Her resume does rely heavily on her business experience, because there is little or no public service listed. What I am looking for in an elected official is someone who is not so one dimensional and is a bit bigger thinker regarding the issues facing the city in the future.
1:53 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Her resume does rely heavily on her business experience, because there is little or no public service listed.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
From her bio:
Look, you don't have to like her. But at least do a little homework before slinging the dirt.
8:00 p.m.
Jan 20, '12
Kari, You are right. I should have written "elected office" instead of public service. That is what I meant....if you think what I wrote was to sling dirt rather than share my opinion, you misjudge me. This is not a like/dislike issue. I don't think that becoming mayor of 23rd most populous city in the nation should be an on the job training program. Mayor Katz had a number of years in the house before applying for this job.
Now that I have apologized for mis-writing one part of my comment can you address the rest of what I wrote.
Her interviews have been poor, she has identified herself more with the business community rather than the community at large, she seems to speak with two sides of her mouth in regards to the CRC....(I am not sure I completely understand it also in all fairness), she has not addressed the revolving door that is the chief of Police situation for our town, nor talked about the growing gang problem.and frankly seems to have some rich entitlement issues. She speaks of jobs to voters as if the Mayor position is where the buck stops on this matter rather than it being more of a national/state issue. There is only so much a mayor can do and to tell everyone different seems more like a marketing ploy. These are all of course only opinions and I thought this is the venue to share them. Let me know if that is not the case please.
She is a very nice person and I do have a great deal of respect for her if that makes you feel better.
12:09 p.m.
Jan 25, '12
Nigel Jaquiss' seems to have lowered his standards for himself. This story is defines the issues poorly. His coverage of Occupy Portland was simply lazy, as comparison to the Mercury shows.
12:52 p.m.
Jan 25, '12
As for details, most of the facts, or the best way to describe a role, I'll leave that to others. (As for Nigel, he's taken licks at me too over the years. Aargh! He is human, but from what I can tell he tends to work pretty hard.)
But I have little doubt that Eileen played an important role in the development of New Seasons. I have seen her in meetings; she is not passive. She has talents. I know Brian; he would not have shut her out.
I also want to offer the thought that occurred to me when I read the story -- wow, a major liquidity event and they didn't move to Clark County. (That's not a knock on anyone.) That deserves some credit too. Any tax advisor making advice on the sale of a major asset would advise the seller to consider prior relocation to avoid capital gains tax. Here it would have been worth hundreds of thousands of dollars had they moved. I would guess they got that advice. That they didn't take the advice speaks to that family's commitment to our place. We need that commitment.
I disagree with Eileen on some things, and I think I'd make a better mayor. But not because she's a bad person. She isn't.
Let's make the campaign about ideas and priorities. This is Portland. The effort here isn't to avoid being bad, but to be great. Let's be great.
3:16 p.m.
Jan 25, '12
"I disagree with Eileen on some things, and I think I'd make a better mayor. But not because she's a bad person. She isn't.
Let's make the campaign about ideas and priorities. This is Portland. The effort here isn't to avoid being bad, but to be great. Let's be great."
Stevie Wonder once sang, "When you're moving in the positive, your destination is the brightest star!"