Matt,

If it helps, I'm happy to say explicitly that I think you blew it on this one.

It wasn't fun or easy to write this piece, but I felt it was important. Jesse is a friend of mine, and we have lots of mutual friends. It's a small town. I just disagree with the way in which the police-related attacks have been aimed at Saltzman. I actually explain that in my piece--when I share my opinion that the reversal of the Humphreys discipline cost Dan far more than it helped him, and that it was based upon the internal mechanics of the grievance process, not political pressure. I also mention that Dan has personally asked the FBI and the USDOJ to review the Portland Police. No one else has taken a stronger step than this.

To the extent that I wrote this to counter your coverage and editorial perspective on this race, I was trying to share the specific reasons why I think you are wrong on this one. I would like to see you give Dan some props for bringing in the feds, and devote some news coverage to where that process stands. You can make a big difference by focusing public attention on what a federal review of the police can accomplish.

Cheers,
Rich

@Rich

Thanks for your input, but I'm confident that our endorsement is sound, and that it's ethical.

I do listen to criticism of our coverage, but the only person who gets to really tell me where I should put my focus is my editor. And in this case I think your attempt to suggest where I should focus my interest is simply to justify supporting a political ally.

I'm also interested to hear about your relationship with Jesse at the Bus Project. Would you categorize him as a "co-founder" of the organization?

And why didn't you mention the Wiener link in your post?

Matt, while I disagree with the content of your endorsement, I certainly don't believe it's unethical. And of course I don't get to call any shots in terms of what you cover. I hope you'll agree it's okay for me to express my opinions about what you cover and how you do it (it's never been a problem when I've praised you).

Honestly, I never would have described Dan as a political ally, though I did work with his staff for years, and we did agree on some important things. Until this campaign, I haven't been involved with his political operation. I don't think I've ever endorsed him before. Honestly, the reason why I chose to do so this time is because of the way the police issues have been handled. I'm far less worried about Dan's political viability than I am worried about the way in which the public discussion on the police has unfolded.

As for the Bus Project, a large number of people were and are involved in the success of that organization. I wasn't there at the time of its founding, and I met my wife, who helps to manage the Bus Project, a few years after the founding of the organization.

It didn't occur to me to mention the Wiener link, because it had nothing to do with why I wrote my BlueOregon article, or decided to endorse Dan in this race. My intent was and is not to criticize you personally, ethically or professionally, but rather to disagree with what I understand to be the policy assumptions underlying your conclusions.

Of course you're free to disagree with what I write, Rich. But I gather that the Bus has got it out for Jesse Cornett, for whatever reason, and it's remarkable how those guys seem to calling in the favors on this race. Mark Zusman even bought it up in Cornett's endorsement interview, this co-founder business. From whence? And as Caitlinn's husband, I feel like you must be aware of the animosity there? Why no mention of it on Blue Oregon?

On the police issue, I'm confused as to why you think the Police Commissioner should not be held accountable by the electorate for his handling of the police bureau. Sounds very inside baseball-y. And I'm just going to respond by re-quoting our endorsement.

“But all this pales in comparison to the recent assignment as police commissioner,” he admits. “It’s been full of challenges, many of which you’ve chronicled [at the Mercury].”

Damn right. And frankly, this election comes down to Mayor Sam Adams’ foolish decision, before he took office last year, to hand his most important responsibility over to Saltzman—controlling our cops.

“Dan landed in a big cesspool and has done the best he could given the circumstances,” says Ed Garren, who has also run an outspoken, if unfocused, campaign for this seat. Still, at least he hasn’t suggested buying the homeless bus tickets, like Mary Volm.

It’s been painful and frustrating to watch as the Portland Police Association has stepped into the power void. Rallying on City Hall last November, for example, following Saltzman’s decision to suspend Christopher Humphreys for beanbagging a 12-year old girl. Saltzman capitulated, reinstating Humphreys, and we wouldn’t have caved in his position. Neither would Cornett.

“Not with the threat of a no-confidence vote, or a parade in the park,” Cornett says with hindsight.

The only person who should take responsibility for our police bureau in Portland is Mayor Sam Adams. But, in his own words, he’d rather focus on other issues. So the question becomes: Should Saltzman be scapegoated for the Mayor’s bad decision?

The answer, unequivocally, is yes he should. While Saltzman didn’t ask for the police bureau, he didn’t turn it down, either. Saltzman got passed a turd, and now he’s running for reelection, holding that turd. Are we supposed to react as though he isn’t holding a giant, enormous turd? We don’t think so.

Feh. Ed Garren and Jason Renaud are the only two candidates worth a damn in this race.

I just don't agree that Dan capitulated because of the march in the park. I think he overstepped what the current contract language allowed him to do in that situation, and realizing his mistake, backed off. What really warrants change, in my view, are all of the off-ramps and favorable provisions in the PPA contract that make it nearly impossible to discipline an officer, even for the most egregious conduct.

From my point of view, if an officer kills someone, a greater burden should be on the officer to demonstrate why that lethal use of force was necessary. Nothing in state law or the contract language hints in this direction. The standard gives officers a great deal of latitude to use lethal force without consequences.

Nothing that Dan has done suggests to me that he isn't serious about the curbing the inappropriate use of force. I personally think he's the best commissioner on the council to take on the issue. His performance on FPDR alone offers a lot to support this view.

I don't think Jesse or any other candidate has made a convincing case that they know how to handle the police union and actually deliver results. That is not an easy task to pull off. All the more reason why I hope we'll lend our critical support to Saltzman. Keep the heat on him, sure. But he'll be more effective with the backing/mandate of the left in this town to deliver.

@Rich: I think Jesse has made a great case. He's said he wouldn't accept the police bureau assignment and that Saltzman should have stood up to Adams when he tried to foist his responsibilities off onto him in the first place.

The only person who should tackle the police bureau is the mayor, and the leadership void created by allocating to another commissioner has led to many of the problems created over recent months.

Cornett's got more backbone. He'd give the police bureau back. It's that simple.

As a former city hall insider I can see why you'd support Saltzman in the race. But I think the public is ready for a change.

Rodgers was working for Sten when the wonder boy dreamed up VOE. Rodgers, along with the entire Sten crew, said VOE would bring us fresh ideas, new faces and clean elections. Now Rodgers says don't vote for the VOE candidate. Interesting.

You too!

Has the Mercury made endorsements yet? Because I just received my ballot and have no idea who the hell most of these people are.

Matt, have you ever considered that you might actually be doing a disservice to your cause? You've banged the drum so hard that my ears have gone numb.

Rich says,
"I actually explain that in my piece--when I share my opinion that the reversal of the Humphrey's discipline cost Dan far more than it helped him, and that it was based upon the internal mechanics of the grievance process, not political pressure."

So let me get this straight...The explanation for Dan changing his mind was that he didn't know what he was doing or the correct "process" in the first place? Not that he gave in to political pressure? AND the fact that he was just ignorant is a good thing?

This whole discussion around the Bus Project and Jesse Cornett is stupid.

#1, as Henry K noted, the Bus hasn't (and won't) endorse in the race.

#2, there are people associated with the Bus on all sides. For example, Nolan Lienhart - the chair of the Bus board - has endorsed Jesse Cornett.

#3, it is a sign of a mature political organization that... See More people in the leadership can take different sides in a particular race and still work together effectively.

#4, I disagree with the notion that Jesse "made the Bus such a centerpiece of his announcement." He's barely talked about it as anything more than a minor bio point -- it's the media, mostly the Oregonian, that insists on ID'ing him solely as a "co-founder of the Bus Project".

As for whether Rich was "put up" by the Bus to write his piece about Jesse - well, that's a laughable assertion. I've known Rich Rodgers for years, and while we disagree on this particular race, I am absolutely confident that his views are his bona fide views. If you know anything about Rich's career, you'll know that he's not a guy to sugarcoat things or be afraid to challenge people on their assumptions.

(And full disclosure: My firm built Jesse Cornett's campaign website. I speak only for myself.)

Forget about co-founding the Bus, he co-founded BlueOregon! Obviously, he should be running on his blogger cred. Or am I perhaps overstating our importance?