Wasn't the 600K a unanimous vote? Alternately, if this was really the abuse of power you want to trump it up into, why even bother to go groveling before a board when you could just rely on your powerful b/f to pull the strings?

Yeah, Saltzman probably should have recused himself from the vote, but it's really not that big of a deal that he didn't, and the way you're trying to shoehorn Burns' behavior into something more insidious than it was looks kind of silly.
Nope, not interesting or a contradiction. The article yesterday was great and important, but this doesn't seem to add anything. She came in once to highlight an issue with their definition and language, and thats it? That hardly counts as being involved in the grant process, or a key player, or a decision maker.

I also don't understand the update at the end. "Has Saltzman's girlfriend ever let this woman pay for dinner?" What woman? Who is Saltzman's girlfriend going to dinner with? Do you mean "Has Saltzman ever let his girlfriend pay for dinner?"
WWeek points out that this didn't even violate the Children's Levy's OWN BYLAWS, and there's no doubt that the charity was worthy of the grant.
@Reymont. That's corrected. Thanks.
Regarding the Update: You are now officially reeking of desperation in your attempts at up-trumping.
I'm with you Matt, I think this looks at least inappropriate enough for him to recuse himself from the decision-making process and the vote on funding.

Frankly, I think this second post makes it all the more troubling because apparently her agency may not have even been eligible for funding a few months before getting $600k. I know from my wife's work that that is a substantial grant for non-profit.

The fact that it was unanimous doesn't mean as much as some would like to make it seem. This is Saltzman's committee. There would be unspoken pressure for others to vote in favor of this agency assuming they knew about the relationship.

My end take is that this is certainly innappropriate and looks shoddy, but probably doesn't rise to the level of corruption. And as we know from the Adams scandal, for the average Blogtowner anything short of illegal is hunky dory behavior from our elected officials. On the Portland City Council, if you stay just on this side of the law and you can do whatever you like.

Matt, can you do some research on the amounts of other grants given out this year, and maybe previous years? That would shed some light on how generous this was.
Tonight's canidate forum by the Urban League called "Equity and Accountability Forum" starting at 5:00pm at Emmanuel Temple Church (1033 N Sumner St.) is shaping up to be the best show in town tonight.

Will Dan show up?
Will T.V. media show up?
Will Burns be there to stand by her Sam (I mean man)?
Will you show up for the "hour-long hospitality period, allowing members of the community to engage with the candidates individually"?
@ Blabby,

Unanimity means something - it means there really wasn't any doubt that this charity deserved the grant in the size that was approved. I think the other people on the board would disagree with the assessment that they are simply Dan's tools.

If Saltzman has a committee that is essentially a rubber stamp for him to distribute millions of taxpayer dollars, that's a WAY BIGGER story than this minor ethical misstep.

I'm haven't even decided who I'm voting for yet, but I know I won't be giving this too much weight.
Are you kidding me, Colin? Imagine the following: a state legislator gets appointed by the state legislator to sit on a board that is in charge of handing out large sacks of money. The state legislator's boyfriend works at a small charitable organization that wants half a million dollars. (let's say... ACORN, or NAMBLA, or whatever.) Should the state legislator reveal the connection? Of course. Should the board have bylaws to prevent this? Of course. Should the state representative follow the bylaws of the board and the ethics rules of the appointing body of course? Does it matter that the other members voted unanimously to support it? Of course not- we don't know why they voted the way they did. And they are of course now suspect themselves since they are aware of the ethical breaches and have done nothing about it.

Does Saltzman get to pick and choose which rules and laws he follows? "oh, that ordinance is going to pass anyway, so I can take secret campaign gifts from a lobbyist" wouldn't fly and neither should this. Saltzman is in violation of the bylaws of this board (and guilty of inflicting the words 'children's levy' on us a thousand times in his campaigning) and he is in violation of the ethics rules of the city council, and a good case could be made for a criminal charge of Official Misconduct. Fortunately for Saltzman, the DA and AG don't care, none of his opponents will risk the politicial blowback of pressing the issue and the rest rest of the city council will shrug and get on with blathering on about due process and shoveling money out the door to rich sports team owners and their ilk. The rest of us will just have to know that Saltzman is a legal opportunist who chooses to ignore rules and laws that are inconvenient to him.
@ Number Six: Which bylaw has he broken? I don't see any from reading this:…

And Matt's attempt to link the couple's private dinners into the gifts thing is just ridiculous. Your argument seems to be that he violated the rules YOU suppose ought to exist, but don't. That's a pretty harsh standard.

I agree he should have disclosed voluntarily, regardless of the bylaws, and I agree he should have recused himself. I disagree that this is that big of a deal.
Actually, response to your comment regarding the Blogtownies' reaction (or lack thereof) to the Sam Adams debacle (which was different as it was no one's business in the first place, where as this involved taxpayers' money), I'd say that based on this poll, we're pretty clearly NOT being indifferent to the situation.
Cue the 'Weiner Machine' to start getting out the message that:

"this is not that big of a deal"
"all politicians lie"
"they were going to vote for it anyway"

That would be Mark Weiner, you know the guy that got John Kroger and Kate Brown elected. The nice thing is that they already have Dan's defence ready, just cut an paste recall with Children's Levy and homophobe with "kid hater".

Just ride it out Dan, you will have Sam and Randy's shoulder to lean on... it will only cost you a vote every now and again.
Committee bylaws are superseded by city charter. Whether or not the Allocation Committee processes were followed is immaterial.
Bylaw broken is:

Section 2. Gifts. No member may accept, on his or her own behalf, or on behalf of the Allocation Committee any contribution, gift, bequest or devise valued at greater than $10 from any organization, or any individual representing an organization, that is currently seeking funding from the Allocation Committee, or which that member knows will in the future seek funding from the Allocation Committee. Notwithstanding the above, elected officials who serve on the Allocation Committee are not precluded from receiving complementary tickets to social events, fundraisers and other similar activities.

So if Saltzman's special ladyfriend got him a gift (or took him to dinner, or gave him sexual favors or whatever) and it was worth more than $10 and he new she was representing an agency that was or would be in the future asking for money, that would violate the law. Note the bylaw doesn't require that it be with a particular intent or with a particular quid pro quo.
@ Number Six, so if it turns out that Ms. Burns hasn't done any of those things, you wouldn't think this was an issue any more? C'mon....
The update totally blows away any credibility for me on this story. It's ridiculous & desperate and makes me question anything that has been written by Matt Davis about this issue.
17 all have way too much time on your hands.

@mattdavis this ethics violation is the equivalent of "Jaywalking." Seriously, people. Matt I think you should have become a lawyer or a cop instead of your chosen profession. Ridiculous!

"Has Saltzman's girlfriend ever paid for dinner? Well, then he may have violated the bylaws. In particular read section 2 of article 11"

This is why Oregon continues to have problems....people who spent their time on shit like this. Please go do something productive and CONSTRUCTIVE.
Veronica, "Oregon continues to have problems" because of blog posts from a weekly alternative newspaper, moreso than deficient political leadership? Interesting theory....
She misrepresented herself but not to a criminal degree. The dinner thing is just corny Matt. The end all be all of this is that Salty should've recused himself and this would be a non-issue. Why he didn't is beyond me.
Veronica-c do you understand the definition of hypocrisy?
1.You can't come and troll and then accuse others of trolling
2. You tell commenters to find something else to do while wasting your OWN TIME commenting on this post.
Saltzman should do the right thing and confess everything before stepping down as commissioner.
That hardly counts as being involved in the grant process, or a key player, or a decision maker.

Are you a nonprofit development staffer? Obviously NOT!
@backbeat - Care to expand on that, at all? She apparently only made one comment during a months-long process. I'm still okay with saying that hardly counts as being involved in the grant process, or a key player, or a decision maker.

Just in case you missed all my other posts (?): Saltzman fucked up in an important way. It's just that this one followup article that doesn't seem to add anything to that.
While I don't respect her choice of boyfriends I do love the condescending "...your little article" remark. AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did she escort Matt to his time-out chair?
The grants scene is hyper-political and since the beginning of 2008, when Oregon's economy was already on the slow tank, getting 600K is like Moses parting the waves. The girlfriend comes to speak for her organization on the subject of grant rules prior to the application... and...she claims now she's never had any key role in the game of getting the grant?

Pure, utter bullshit.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.