Is posted in full on the city auditor’s website, here. Highlights:
1.03.020 Trust. The purpose of City government is to serve the public. City officials treat their office as a public trust.
B. City officials promote public respect by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
“Public service requires a continual effort to overcome cynical attitudes and suspicions about the people in government. For example, conduct which could appear dishonest to a reasonable observer will undermine the public trust even if the conduct is not illegal.”1.03.050 Leadership. “Ethical leadership sets a good example and treats all citizens with respect.”
D. Officials avoid discreditable personal conduct and are personally honest.
Discuss.
Well.
That sounds like a recipe for failure.
What a tarp.
I don’t see where it says that city officials need to disclose all of their consensual adult sexual relations before they are elected to office.
Does going on dates with a gay man when you are single count as “discreditable personal conduct”?
Adams had sex with a man who worked in a completely different branch of government. He shows more impropriety by currently dating a reporter for the Oregonian.
Yes, he lied about something completely unrelated to his job, kind of like how Obama lied about quitting smoking.
He is gay, Davis. Are you homophobic? Do you hate me and Sam because we are gay? He told the truth! He is progressive, green, sustainable and Portland NEEDS him! Nobody else could fill his thong!
By the same token that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, it’s amusing how so many on this forum have decided he’s not guilty, end of story.
This isn’t just about the lies.
Sam Adams, the mayor of Portland, asked (I will refrain from saying ‘pressured’) an 18-year old working in a political job to lie on his behalf to protect his own reputation.
Then he decided to come back to Portland and protect himself, thereby sacrificing an opportunity to speak to congress on behalf of the city while congress is considering how to allocate $250 billion in infrastructure funds.
Sam put himself ahead of the city. He put his own interests ahead of those of someone who was looking for guidance. That’s the beginning and end as far as I’m concerned.
And Sam’s behavior in the whole matter is very reminiscent of his predecessors and the people he learned politics from=- the ones who governed this city out the back door- Neil Goldschmidt (everyone knows his scandal) and Vera Katz (who regularly covered up the shadow govt. she established with the PDC).
Portland has had 30-plus years of this. Are we going to sit back when confronted with it and say that this is OK?
I’m not.
Hi Mikey –
Since you just copy/pasted your comment from Blue Oregon verbatim, I hope you won’t mind if I past mine in as well…
—————-
> “This isn’t just about the lies.”
But someone else was just insisting that it was JUST about the lies!
> “And Sam’s behavior in the whole matter is very reminiscent of his predecessors and the people he learned politics from=- the ones who governed this city out the back door- Neil Goldschmidt (everyone knows his scandal) and Vera Katz (who regularly covered up the shadow govt. she established with the PDC). Portland has had 30-plus years of this. Are we going to sit back when confronted with it and say that this is OK?”
Everything you just said about his predecessors was known/alleged/discussed/debated openly before the election.
The Code of Ethics explicitly states that Sam Adams still hasn’t broken any laws (excepting the possible discovery in the future of impropriety of hiring Amy Ruiz).
“”Ethics” means positive principles of conduct. Some ethical requirements are enforced by federal, state, or local law. Others rely on training, or on individuals’ desire to do the right thing. The provisions of this chapter which are not elsewhere enforced by law shall be considered advisory only.”
“To protect freedom of speech and of the press, Oregon law does not prohibit ethically questionable actions such as untrue statements, unkept promises, or deliberate deception. Nevertheless, such actions are unethical.”
However, Sam Adams could be found to have broken the advisory portion of the Code of Ethics.
Bob Ball might have been found to have broken the Code of Ethics as well due to this passage, “Elections offer the ultimate accountability for City officials. Therefore, candidates should strive for respectful and accurate discourse on important issues. “
So the question is, did one persons unethical actions begat another persons unethical actions? Who is at larger fault? Does it matter?
Someone else can parse City Code to see if it applies to this issue.
Here’s what I see:
– Was the very question inappropriate? The chatter in 2008 was about sex with a 17-year-old, which is a crime, so the question was appropriate given the context of a mayoral campaign. “The question should never have been asked” — sure, if the chatter was about an affair with a grownup. This wasn’t.
– Was Adams’ response back then even a lie? He seems to think he was denying charges of sex with a minor. If Breedlove was in fact 18 when the affair started, he’s technically correct, if weaselly, and the affair was legal, if ethically sketchy. If Breedlove was 17, it was the beginning of coverup of a crime.
-Why are Portlanders pissed off?
1) This is a fairly small city in many ways, and people can get to know their elected officials here — or think they know them — so the lie/half-truth feels personal, rightly or wrongly.
2) The coverup was SO carefully orchestrated — coaching the youth to lie about the affair, sending elaborate and self-righteous denials to everybody. It’s not like he hired Cubans to break into Sho Dozono’s campaign headquarters, but it’s pretty Machiavellian. Anybody out there approve of Machiavellian politicians? Rightly or wrongly, lots of us don’t.
3) Iit’s created a lot of collateral damage: Bob Ball, Amy J. Ruiz, the Mercury’s (already wobbly) cred as a news source, possibly Beau Breedlove. Anybody who stood behind Adams regarding the rumors (even bad ol’ Randy Leonard) should feel besmirched. That’s a lotta hurt.
– Is the uproar primarily about homophobia? No one knows, any more than anyone really knows whether racism drove the uproar around Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard. The accusation however is JUST NAME-CALLING unless a specific individual expresses his homophobia, which some surely will. Those who feel hurt by the lie/half-truth shouldn’t have to defend themselves against unfounded accusations. Yes, the gay-haters are loving this, as are the Adams-haters and government-haters. That can’t be helped.
– Should Adams resign? IMO: Not if he told the truth about Breedlove’s age. That needs to be determined. If, as he claims, he lied about legal sex because of allegations about ILLEGAL sex, he was in a bitch of a position. I think he’s right: people wouldn’t have believed him. Myself, I’d forgive the lie/half-truth and the coverup and get on with my life. If it was sex with a 17-year-old — if the touching stories about mentoring confused, closeted gay teens were bullshit — it’s a different question.
Maybe we can all cool our jets until the investigation establishes Breedlove’s age at the time of the affair.
Good assessment Guffman. We’ve been waiting for you.
Thank you. Whether you mean it or not. 🙂
Kiala had it right. People are always so shocked to find out their leaders are human. The only difference between the average Joe and a politician is that the politician has to pretend he’s perfect.
A quick note on the ridiculous, idiotic, unfair crucifixion of Amy Ruiz. I have more to say on the matter but let’s just begin easy:
Can anyone believe that taking Ruiz off the case while Pulitzer Prizewinning Superstar, Master of Diligence, unmasker of Goldschmidt, Nigel Jaquiss remained on the case would have mattered? No offense to Amy, but Jaquiss is the more daunting opponent, and if anybody was going to get Adams, it was him.
Guffman – while I mostly agree with you, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect us ever to know definitively that Breedlove was 18 when they first had sex. Nobody except the two of them knows for sure. There can never be proof. And even if both of them say he was over 18, lots of people won’t believe them. So an enquiry into that is largely pointless.
An independent enquiry into the Ruiz hiring would be more likely to come to a definite conclusion one way or the other; and since that is the most important bit of this story anyway, that’s what I’d like to see started. Sucks for Amy, who (as far as anyone is aware) hasn’t done anything wrong herself except possibly not telling the Mercury editor of her new job application; but the circumstances of her hiring will determine whether Sam keeps his job.
If a 42 year-old engaging in discreet, recreational sexual activities with an 18 year-old can be considered improper by a segment of the population, then he violated the code. Of course, being gay is considered improper by a segment of the population, so by simply existing, Sam is violating the code.
If he had not been seeking higher office and this fling had not been turned into a political weapon, he would simply be guilty of doing what some, (not me), deem improper. Since he was seeking to move up the political ladder and since there are always going to be attacks on those looking to gain high office, he responded to the allegations of impropriety as anyone with political savvy would… he lied. He lied because there are still enough people out there who believe that a gay man isn’t able to keep his hands (and dick) off a hot young chunk of jail bait. He lied because if he hadn’t, he would have been tried in the altogether ill-informed and thoughtless court of public opinion and his hard-earned career and life would have been over. He lied so he could keep his dream of leading this city. I for one love this town and the fact that we have a wonky, gay, articulate, and visionary mayor. Yeah, he got lonely and fell for the siren song of a hot, young admirer. That doesn’t make him a bad mayor. In my book, neither does his instinct to try and bury the rumors about it. It shows that he understands his constituents. He knows he can’t rust us to trust him. And now we see just how right he was.
Andrew, Nigel already got Adams last year. He said in his story this week that one of two major reasons he took up this story again was that Ruiz went to work for the mayor.
Stu,
“There can never be proof”: You may be right. Let’s see what the enquiry produces.
“An independent enquiry into the Ruiz hiring would be more likely to come to a definite conclusion one way or the other”: A conclusion as to what, exactly? Adams’ motivation in hiring her? Not likely — if he hired her to get her off the Breedlove story, he most likely didn’t tell anyone. Whether she meets the posted job description? Job descriptions are NEVER the sole measure of a job candidate. Whether Adams and Ruiz colluded on a deal prior to her hire? Good luck with that.
BOTH enquiries might very well be dry holes.
I bet the hire was (give or take):
40% cronyism
20% buy-off
40% good qualifications
For clarification, are there any attorneys who might wish to comment on this aspect of the city’s ethics code?
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/inde…
@matt IANAL,but
I believe your question is how would 1.01.140 affect 1.03; and in particular 1.03.020B and 1.03.050D.
Well… 1.01.140 says, “However, no greater penalty shall be imposed than the penalty prescribed by the Oregon statute for the same act or omission.”
Lying to the press is not against any Oregon statute that I know of. So… my impression is that Sam Adams could be accused of violating two statutes of City Code but that neither was an actual criminal offense.
I think we should send all this in to Randy Cohen, the NY Times’ Ethics guy.
And to answer Guffman’s question about why Portlanders are so pissed off, to me, it’s because of the promise that a Sam Adams mayoralty had. If you were a Sam believer, you thought that finally there was going to be serious, bold leadership that reflected your values. There were exciting times ahead. And now this – questionable sexual behavior (I say questionable because not everyone agrees it was bad), public and private lies, fine reputations damaged and people betrayed (like Amy, like Randy Leonard, who stuck up for him) and, maybe as serious as the original ‘crime’, a vicious dogfight ripping apart the electorate. With all this damage, even if Sam stays in office, how is he going to be able to build the alliances he needs to accomplish his ambitious agenda?
I’m still on the fence about this whole thing, although I think I’m coming down slightly in favor of Sam. But no matter how this turns out, in the end, we all got screwed.
Right.
Plus the criminal offense that everyone seems to keep forgetting he’s accused of.
Plus the criminal offense that everyone seems to keep forgetting he’s accused of.
Which is?
Has someone filed a formal legal complaint with specific allegations? Does it include witness statements or other evidence? Please provide a link to the complaint and the supporting documents, especially any police reports, I’m very curious to read up about this.
S. Val, good point. People felt the same way when Potter came in; Chavez Boulevard proved him to be a divider & a dunce. Now this. It’s disillusioning, for those of us who still harbor illusions.
Think for a moment about Adam’s position. He’s asked whether or not he had a sexual relationship with a considerably younger man. It has nothing to do with the business of running the city. It’s designed to create a moral judgement and sway voters. He’s in the middle of a campaign. He’s gay. There are plenty of ignorant rednecks left in Portland to ensure his loss had he come clean.
What the hell do you assholes expect him to do? Does he not have a right to a private sex life simply because he’s running for mayor?
If there is a criminal investigation against Sam Adams, please provide a link. Otherwise, STFU.
The way I see it, there is no evidence of a sexual crime. I am unsure if there is evidence of the crime of official misconduct. There are two types of official misconduct, first and second degree. Second degree official misconduct is short but vague: “A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the second degree if the person knowingly violates any statute relating to the office of the person.”
What is a “statute relating to the office” of a person? Well it’s tough to say. I would not think that “statute” is limited to state law. It could be a city ordinance, I would guess.
Official misconduct in the first degree involves harming people or gaining personal benefit:
A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another:
(a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the public servant by law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or
(b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an unauthorized exercise in official duties.
Does a city commissioner have an “inherent duty” to avoid misleading the public about a sexual matter? What if the false statement altered an election?
I look forward to reading John Kroger’s analysis.
The investigation is being conducted by the attorney general, remember?
‘Does it include witness statements or other evidence’
It will.
Here is the criminal investigation link so stop telling me to STFU porn king:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2009/r…
D –
The link you provide is for a press release about an investigation. It contains no mention of specific allegations or of any evidence or witness testimony at this time.
When you wrote “Plus the criminal offense that everyone seems to keep forgetting he’s accused of.”, I was hoping you had the scoop on something more concrete than an accusation-free press release.
It may very well be the case, if there is more information than what we’ve heard in the press already, that an investigation could result in real accusations (charges, indictments) of criminal activity. But at this stage, it is unfair to characterize the investigation as being “accused”.
He may be “accused” in the opinion of some members of the public, that’s fine, but he has been _formally_ accused of nothing — yet.
Can we stop overreacting and just let the dust settle for a few days, and see where this investigation takes us?
Agreed. Mostly. But porn king asked for a link to a criminal investigation, which it is an inquiry into.
I have no scoop.
And just to add in my humble opinion, the whole thing is just sad for everybody involved, and there’s no quick or easy way out.
That’s really more of a guideline. And it’s application in this context is highly subjective.
I mean “ITS” “ITS!” God. I hate myself sometimes.
I really wonder what this discussion would look like if we were talking about Potter instead of Adams? and while I haven’t come to any solid conclusions on this issue myself, but I can’t help but see the cult of personality all over this. The arguments defending Adam’s actions have a lot of the same tone as the arguments folks were throwing out defending Palin’s qualifications to be VP.
I await your pitchforks and torches….
Well, the idea of Potter having sex with anything is just…ewwwww…sticky and…old and….white beardy and….ewwwww.
Potter should resign.
What were we talking about again?
“Can we stop overreacting and just let the dust settle for a few days, and see where this investigation takes us?”
In other words, shut up and not give our opinion?
Of course we will have to wait. Had he killed a man I imagine we’d still be talking about recalling him and half the city on his side. But we will “overreact” as much as we damn well please…