Curious about the City Auditor's Role, I reviewed the Auditor's Office Website and found that the auditor (Wow!) is vital to our local government.

The Auditor's Office offers an abundance of services. Including: assessments, liens, lobbying regulation, citizen ombudsman for complaints with city agencies, he/she oversees the Independent Police Review, and acts as our only official system of checks and balances for publicly funded projects in the city.

The new Auditor will definitely impact our ability to understand and communicate with local government. I would like to know that great candidates had an opportunity to prepare and campaign with our public monies for this vital role.

The new Auditor may very well have a huge hand in shaping the future of Portland as a whole; considering this office was held for a decade by Gary Blackmer. And taking the time to find the most qualified candidates possible seems not only fair but necessary in this economic climate.

You're headline is confusing. You mean $50K PER CANDIDATE, right? If there are two candidates and each candidate receives $67K, then that's $134K, right?

Seems awfully expensive for one of the least interesting political offices.

For clarification: Yes. That's what I meant.

I commend City officials for working hard to make the Voter Owned Elections program work for this unexpected election.

Investment by taxpayers into publicly-financed elections results in:
1) The winning candidate has no big contributors -- other than the entire public-at-large who they owe anything to. This allows for public policy and appointments more in the public interest -- and also less costly to the taxpayer in the long run.
2) More quality candidates can secure the financial resources necessary to run.

I am concerned, however, that there is a rush to hold this election. While the City Auditor is not a traditionally "interesting" office to most anyone, it is an extremely important one.

If you think it's important to have accountability for a couple of a hundred billion bucks or so from the federal bailout, then you would automatically -- with careful thought -- think it's important to have accountability of Portland's budget.

While I do believe that the first above goal that I articulated for Voter Owned Elections is likely to be met, I think the highly-compressed election period -- and the highly-compressed period in which candidates must collect 1,000 $5 contributions to qualify for public financing -- is not designed to achieve the second goal.

Sure, the position of green eyeshaded Auditor, with the requisite of being a CPA, is less likely to draw a crowded field of quality candidates than is the position of City Commissioner. But inherent in that -- and in the importance of the position -- is the beauty of public financing: With a healthy time period to qualify, it is designed to attract more quality candidates, a wonderful plus for the taxpayers of Portland.

One year ago, we had a special election with a highly-compressed time schedule and a specially-compressed period to qualify for public financing. Only one candidate was prepared to qualify for public financing, inviting criticism of Portland's Voter Owned Elections program.

For this vacancy, I would rather see the City Council consider many qualified candidates for appointment as Interim Auditor until a special election in November instead of on May 19th, allowing the Voter Owned Elections program to not be so rushed.

I am a fierce advocate of public financing. No doubt, it has its opponents who likely will criticize it whether there is only one "serious" candidate who runs unopposed and who "gets" $50,000 to run (virtually) in default -- or whether there are 10 (unlikely) candidates qualifying for a total of $500,000 in the "nominating" election.

But at least in response to criticism that the program is drawing many candidates and costing more money, it can be said that the second goal is being met: opening up politics so that more Portlanders can participate in our democracy. That's a good thing.

And along with that greater taxpayer expenditure to expand instead of restrict participation in the political process, we give ourselves a shot at putting political and governmental decisions and decision-makers under greater, constructive scrutiny and accountability -- and at reducing wasteful spending.