To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
In other words, “he can always dump her”
Surprised that the law doesn’t cover this situation.
Any pictures of the lady in question? It would be funny if she is drastically out of Saltzman’s league…
So, it can’t be a conflict of interest unless they’re a bonafide relative? Then if I were a councilman I’d be handing out all kinds of favors to get laid.
One, two, three: everybody “aspirate” together!
No shit. Talk about corruption in our city. FFS…
If he liked it then he should have put a ring on it.
OK, quick: someone draft a conflict of interest rule that anticipates every situation that MIGHT look ethically shaky, but that can’t be called out as pragmatically difficult, or potentially wildly over-inclusive.
GO!
Here you go CC:
Don’t give public money to someone you’re fucking.
Stand by your Dan! His sex life is his own bidness!
Blabby has ‘nailed it’. I would also add section 2: Don’t give public money to people with the expectation that in return they will fuck you.
Also – the deputy city attorney’s opinion means exactly jack shit in this context (‘based on the facts as presented to us’). I am sure that any criminal or law violator’s attorney can lay out the arguments why their client is not guilty. I believe that is the definition of many a lawyer’s job. If you want an actual assessment, don’t ask the person’s attorney who has a goal of protecting their client operating on facts as presented by the client.
In other news, in the view of the city attorney government officials can now hand out money to their special lady friends (or gentlemen callers) as long as they don’t marry them! Huzzah! Now Merritt Paulson’s love for certain politicians dare speak its true name!
This is NOT the view of the state OGEC, which (in other contexts) ties conflicts to those who reside together, regardless of relationship.
I’m felling pretty fucked by all this. Can I get some money?
Blabby nailed it for sure. Saltzman seems ever more the shmuck with each new witless attempt to defend himself. I mean, have some dignity and cop to it already, Saltzman.
Reymont, Ms Burns is on facebook. When I did a little googling, I came upon a Trib article from 4/29 that included some little profiles of each candidate. Dan’s said, “Family: Girlfriend, Liz Burns…” as well as mentioning his daughter. Huh.
The city attorney solely protects the City of Portland.
This is the same office that protects the Portland Police.
Most importantly this is a ‘memo’ not a ‘ruling’, only a judge can make a ‘ruling’. This can only happen if someone filed formal charges where a neutral (which the city attorney is not) third party can investigate.