The city’s Citizen’s Campaign Commission is mulling whether to allot $50,000 of taxpayer money to publicly-financed candidates running for the newly vacant city auditor’s position, at a meeting in the city auditor’s office this evening.
That’s $100,000 per candidate less than they’re technically allowed under city code. City Auditor Gary Blackmer resigned last week, and his resignation is scheduled to take effect on May 18, the day before a special election is scheduled, citywide. Blackmer’s job, like all the other city commissioners’, is eligible for publicly funded candidates, and city code says candidates for the job can use up to $150,000 each. But City Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who is the first elected city commissioner ever to have got there with public money, is pushing the commission to agree to lower the amount of money so as to make the elections process less controversial.
“I want to have this process be as non-controversial as possible,” says Fritz. “So that it doesn’t have any semblance of figuring it out on the fly.”
“Another factor that is going to play in, hugely, is the current economy,” she says.
Fritz’s own Office of Human Relations is looking at a cut of 50%, and the Office of Neighborhood Involvement is also looking at a 16% cut, she says.
“The media laid into public financing the Sunday after I was elected the week before. I just don’t want to have that debate during this election,” she continues (note: I’m not sure which article Fritz is referring to, but the Oregonian has slammed voter-owned elections since they came to pass…) “So I think if we, here tonight, can come to consensus on a number which many of us may feel is too low…I think that this is the best way for us to go at this particular point in time.”
“I would really like to have a 5-0 vote with very little discussion on this, when we discuss it in council next week,” she continues.
If Fritz appears to be giving the commission the hard sell, it’s because she’s a champion of voter owned elections, which are scheduled to go before voters next year. She wants the election to go smoothly so that when voters get the opportunity to approve voter owned elections next year, they don’t have yet another debacle to cite as a reason to vote against the process—so far, one candidate essentially absconded with the taxpayer funds to go to Montana, and another paid his campaign chief $25,000 for three months, planting lawn signs.
“We want to not turn this election into debate about publicly financed elections, but to focus the attention of the media and the public on the candidates who come forward,” says Fritz.
Of course, the Citizens’ Campaign Commission, which is only an adviser to council, who will vote on this issue next week, can’t agree on anything. An hour into the meeting, people are continuing to argue over the details. Some think auditor candidates won’t be able to gather the necessary 1000 signatures to qualify for public financing…others do…some are concerned about reducing the amount of public money available for an auditor as opposed to a city commissioner, others aren’t…
But by 6:45, the Commission has agreed to Fritz’s $50,000 figure, with $67,000 if there’s a run-off between two candidates.
It’s surprising to hear Fritz pushing for a resolution like this, so quickly. Jasun Wurster, who even served on Fritz’s campaign, says he doesn’t think May 19 is going to be long enough for publicly-financed candidates to get it together in time. “And I don’t think that time period serves adequately for education of the public,” he says. But it will only cost $80,000 to run the auditor’s election on May 19. To do it in July would be $375,000. To do it in September would be $600,000. That’s the price of a thorough public process in lean times like these, I guess.
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.