What if she had been a "close friend?" Does sexual activity make the nondisclosure less ethical? How well do you have to know somebody before there's a need to declare conflict of interest? Discuss.
The Association of Fundraising Professionals Code of Ethical Principles and Standards, in part reads, "Members shall effectively disclose all potential and actual conflicts of interest; such disclosure does not preclude or imply ethical impropriety."
Our work is, like that of politicians and cops, entirely based on trust, so fund-raisers take this Code with absolute seriousness both as individuals and as members of a community of fundraisers.
Yet he can not do the exact same thing to 4 people on a board when distributing $600,000 of public money because he claims that, "...I'm kind of a shy guy, and I'm not in the habit of declaring who I date"?
Trenchant point? Are you fucking kidding me? There are lots of people in elected office who are quite shy. They are compentent. They do good work. Elected officials can't be shy?
It's fine to have an honest discussion about the qualifications about people running for office in our great city and state. But, please, get back to your roots of actually being thoughful in the kind of reporting you do. The over the top editorial slant you've taken to your coverage of this race does a disservice to Mercury readers and your past reporting history.
There are plenty of shy politicians in Oregon. They do good work. They ran because they wanted to make their community and the state a better place, not throw their dick on the table to see if they are the real deal like some candidates I could name. And they are doing good work all over the place.
It's fine to have a discussion about the relevant merits of people who are seeking public office, and I continue to hope you ask the important questions. But the editorial slant you have taken to your reporting on this race is a disservice to Mercury readers and your history of relatively competent reporting. We expect more.
Just to make mention. Is Saltzman really in a world of hurt? I'd still bet this election is over after the primary.
This is trying to drum up scandal in a 5-0 vote to give money to a charity that works with victims of child abuse.
I'd bet money that if Saltzman had not voted on this the Cornett campaign would be using his non-vote against him somehow. Also...is Blogtown now serving as the unofficial vote for Cornett in the primary blog so there will be more excitement for the general election?
God I love and hate this type of journalism at the same time.
"This is trying to drum up scandal in a 5-0 vote to give money to a charity that works with victims of child abuse. "
Agreed. Note to Jesse and Mary - show us the money! I'd love a change from Dan, please please please show us and tell us and make a big sign sharing the reasons why we should vote for you. So far, I don't see that much of a difference.
Between this failure to disclose intimate ties with the person he's (using his public office's influence to be) forking money over to AND his lack of courage in dealing with steroidal police, I'd say let's vote Cornett or Volm for sure. The old guard needs to change here. Twelve years is long enough for Mr. "Shy Guy."
Of course, if we want to raise some other issues about the commissioner... how about his voter's pamphlet photo. Unless I am mistaken, the photo is supposed to be current. Check it out. That photo of his was taken more than twenty years ago; he's been using it ever since he went into politics. It almost looks like a high school yearbook photo.
Somebody check the rules, but I'm pretty sure that photo is in violation.
Not to mention the fact that everyone on the board reportedly knew Saltman and Burns were dating when voting unanimously voting that Burns firm should receive $600,000. It it's true it makes them all accomplices. It was reported that Ted Wheeler our new state treasurer...you know the same one Ted Wheeler L@@KING into the "another" fiscal scandal, that being the one over at the department of treasury, voted for Burns firm CARES to get the $600,000.
That is a lot of money btw, and it WAS NOT a gift from Dan Saltzman. Those are taxpayer funds.
It seems like one big kleptocratic money grab to me.
And you can't tell me that the nepotism didn't help Burn's position as fundraiser over at CARES and/or that her continued employment while how many others across the state are seeking employment, doesn't continue to enhance their joint fiscal lifestyle together? They take trips together don't they? She buys him gifts doesn't she? How wouldn't bolstering her by seeing that her firm got the grant bode well for Dan Saltzman's girlfriend.
Please quit insulting our intelligence. I mean really.
This is corruption and the most blatant form of fiscal funneling I have scene exposed in the city to date.
And I love their new boilerplate statement they regurgitate everytime they are confronted with a specific question regarding an incident in which their integrity is on the line; "YOU HAVE BEEN MISINFORMED."
Dan Says "Ethical Breach" Accusations Are "Politics Of Desperation"
Yup, slam the opposition, just like Sam Adams did, to deflect the truth.
Saltzman is just as unethical as our liar of a mayor, but if Sam can get away with unethical behavior, so can Saltzman and the rest of the commissioners (who remained silent regarding Sam's transgressions).
OMG soooo right. Funneling that $600,000 to a charity that works with victims of child abuse, "is corruption and the most blatant form of fiscal funneling I have scene exposed in the city to date."
BlackedOut - you neglect to consider other qualified charity applicants whose efforts were and are marginalized when rewarding a quite obvious inappropriate relationship between the board chairman (an elected official) and the grantee ( his partner/significant other's/lover's employer) and the affect these acts will have on the taxpayers and other applicants perception of "the process", not to mention the fact that Ted Wheeler (the State of Oregon's newly appointed Treasurer) and others reportedly "knew" they were voting to gift $600,000 to Dan Saltzman's girlfriend's employer.
My guess is that intellect and ethics are not your strong points or theirs. Good luck with that.
The way the state laws have been conveniently drafted to favor unethical local officials reinforces that they can funnel as many funds as they want to their partners/significant others/lovers, their pet projects, employers, real estate developments because the way the current definition of conflict of interest is worded, it's not considered graft or a conflict of interest to favor an entity associated with the official's partner/significant other/lover.
Whose responsible for that pretty incredible oversight and just how many other inappropriate gifts have been extended?
I suggest legislature get on that law, johnny on the spot, and change it to add that a conflict of interest includes anyone an elected official/government employee deciding over contracts has sex with, as that could be legally construed as a pecuniary benefit.
Waiting for a follow-up article in The O, subsequent to the one Dan dropped there claiming, in conflict with his partner's statements that "everyone knew", that the reason for his decision not to disclose his relationship was because he was "shy". Uh! Does that statement not suggest that he knowingly did not disclose the matter? And does it not contradict the lack of shyness he demonstrated when publicly recognizing his significant other at a City Club event associated with his upcoming election. A contradiction? Ya think?
Next I expect he'll claim the relationship has never been consumated and that there was never any sexual pecuniary benefit for him....because well... he's "shy". Bwahahahhahaha!
Go sell crazy somewhere else. IMO, this city and it's officials have the corner on all the C's that being; corrupt, crapshoot, crazy, consiglieres, conceal, cover-up, covert...the list goes on and on.
Our work is, like that of politicians and cops, entirely based on trust, so fund-raisers take this Code with absolute seriousness both as individuals and as members of a community of fundraisers.
http://www.citizenrecall.org/data/audio/not_so_shy_saltzman.mp3
Yet he can not do the exact same thing to 4 people on a board when distributing $600,000 of public money because he claims that, "...I'm kind of a shy guy, and I'm not in the habit of declaring who I date"?
It's fine to have an honest discussion about the qualifications about people running for office in our great city and state. But, please, get back to your roots of actually being thoughful in the kind of reporting you do. The over the top editorial slant you've taken to your coverage of this race does a disservice to Mercury readers and your past reporting history.
There are plenty of shy politicians in Oregon. They do good work. They ran because they wanted to make their community and the state a better place, not throw their dick on the table to see if they are the real deal like some candidates I could name. And they are doing good work all over the place.
It's fine to have a discussion about the relevant merits of people who are seeking public office, and I continue to hope you ask the important questions. But the editorial slant you have taken to your reporting on this race is a disservice to Mercury readers and your history of relatively competent reporting. We expect more.
This is trying to drum up scandal in a 5-0 vote to give money to a charity that works with victims of child abuse.
I'd bet money that if Saltzman had not voted on this the Cornett campaign would be using his non-vote against him somehow. Also...is Blogtown now serving as the unofficial vote for Cornett in the primary blog so there will be more excitement for the general election?
God I love and hate this type of journalism at the same time.
Agreed. Note to Jesse and Mary - show us the money! I'd love a change from Dan, please please please show us and tell us and make a big sign sharing the reasons why we should vote for you. So far, I don't see that much of a difference.
Somebody check the rules, but I'm pretty sure that photo is in violation.
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2010-05/portland_comm_3_dan_saltzman.shtml
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2006-05/portland_3.shtml
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2002-05/pdx_c3.shtml
Though the last one looks totally photo shopped... like a flyer for a stripper you would get on the Las Vegas strip.
Just ask Dan, he will know what I am talking about.
That is a lot of money btw, and it WAS NOT a gift from Dan Saltzman. Those are taxpayer funds.
It seems like one big kleptocratic money grab to me.
And you can't tell me that the nepotism didn't help Burn's position as fundraiser over at CARES and/or that her continued employment while how many others across the state are seeking employment, doesn't continue to enhance their joint fiscal lifestyle together? They take trips together don't they? She buys him gifts doesn't she? How wouldn't bolstering her by seeing that her firm got the grant bode well for Dan Saltzman's girlfriend.
Please quit insulting our intelligence. I mean really.
This is corruption and the most blatant form of fiscal funneling I have scene exposed in the city to date.
And I love their new boilerplate statement they regurgitate everytime they are confronted with a specific question regarding an incident in which their integrity is on the line; "YOU HAVE BEEN MISINFORMED."
Bwhahahahaha!
You got what you voted for Portland.
Yup, slam the opposition, just like Sam Adams did, to deflect the truth.
Saltzman is just as unethical as our liar of a mayor, but if Sam can get away with unethical behavior, so can Saltzman and the rest of the commissioners (who remained silent regarding Sam's transgressions).
OMG soooo right. Funneling that $600,000 to a charity that works with victims of child abuse, "is corruption and the most blatant form of fiscal funneling I have scene exposed in the city to date."
You have opened my eyes.
My guess is that intellect and ethics are not your strong points or theirs. Good luck with that.
The way the state laws have been conveniently drafted to favor unethical local officials reinforces that they can funnel as many funds as they want to their partners/significant others/lovers, their pet projects, employers, real estate developments because the way the current definition of conflict of interest is worded, it's not considered graft or a conflict of interest to favor an entity associated with the official's partner/significant other/lover.
Whose responsible for that pretty incredible oversight and just how many other inappropriate gifts have been extended?
I suggest legislature get on that law, johnny on the spot, and change it to add that a conflict of interest includes anyone an elected official/government employee deciding over contracts has sex with, as that could be legally construed as a pecuniary benefit.
Waiting for a follow-up article in The O, subsequent to the one Dan dropped there claiming, in conflict with his partner's statements that "everyone knew", that the reason for his decision not to disclose his relationship was because he was "shy". Uh! Does that statement not suggest that he knowingly did not disclose the matter? And does it not contradict the lack of shyness he demonstrated when publicly recognizing his significant other at a City Club event associated with his upcoming election. A contradiction? Ya think?
Next I expect he'll claim the relationship has never been consumated and that there was never any sexual pecuniary benefit for him....because well... he's "shy". Bwahahahhahaha!
Go sell crazy somewhere else. IMO, this city and it's officials have the corner on all the C's that being; corrupt, crapshoot, crazy, consiglieres, conceal, cover-up, covert...the list goes on and on.