October 23, 2003
'WW' Endorses PUD, As 'Oregonian' Columnist Calls Election Process Corrupt
First off, yesterday the Willamette Week endorsed the formation of a People's Utility District here in Multnomah County:
First, PGE's conduct has been a textbook case not of the failures of the free-market system, but of the failures of a system of unregulated monopoly--which has left customers saddled with stratospheric rates and its employees stripped of their pensions. According to state figures, PGE's rates are the highest of any major utility in the Northwest and it charged customers, on average, more than any PUD or municipally owned Oregon utility last year.
Second, voters should say yes because the opponents haven't found a compelling reason to say no. Opponents are painting the formation of a PUD as a radical move that will kill the business environment. If that's the case, someone needs to let the cities of Seattle, Sacramento and Los Angeles know. Those cities are served by public power, as are 27 percent of the residents of this state.
In the weekly's other item on this election, it endorses a slate of candidates for the PUD board, despite its unease that "state law requires the five-member board be elected at the same time the utility is formed." Nonetheless, the paper does select five candidates and urges voters to elect them.
You can also read another view of the PUD board candidates by Jack Bogdanski, who is getting a lot of mention here lately because his is the other local weblog following the PUD election fairly regularly. Plus, we don't necessarily agree on everything, but we never seem to disgaree in a rabid or hostile way. While I tend towards voting for the PUD, I've admitted before that I am partly conflicted over the specifics, so readers here may as well get pointers to other perspectives on the matter.
Continuing on to today's Oreogonian, columnist Steve Duin slams the election process:
Inherently misleading? Designed to prevent accurate information from reaching the voters? That's your average initiative campaign in a nutshell. It is the essence of the media blitz put together by PGE and those folksy "citizens" -- the average salary of whom is what, $300,000 plus? -- who are against the "government takeover."
No surprise there. You know where PGE is coming from. The company's livelihood and Enron bonuses are at stake. You expect the utility to toe the line between disingenuous and dishonest as it incites property-tax hysteria.
But the voters -- denied accurate information and battered by bald-faced exaggerations -- have reason to expect more from Multnomah County and the courts.
Instead, they have ballot language that overstates the tax implications of the two measures by a factor of a mere 10,000. They have the county Elections Division, which proceeded with business as usual and mailed out 345,000 ballots knowing there were legal issues involving the language on the suckers.
Duin also reminds us of something else that Judge Haggerty mentioned last Friday: That the county had previously explained that ballots did not need to be mailed out until October 21 -- and then nonetheless mailed them out on the day before the October 17 court hearing, thereby ensuring that voters would have in hand ballots the judge might conceivably be about to crack down upon.
[John Kauffman, Multnomah County's Director of Elections,] in other words, is comfortable with the scenario described by Dan Meek, the lawyer and much of the energy behind the PUD measures: "Right on the ballot, within a fraction of an inch from where the voter marks yes or no, is a statement that the federal judge has found to be patently false and profoundly misleading. Can we have a fair election? Probably not."
Kudos for Duin for slamming this process as hard as it deserved to be slammed. But I do have one remaining question regarding The Oregonian and this electoral disaster.
According to earlier reports, one of the ads required by Haggerty's order was purchased by the County prior to his order being stayed by the appeals court. That ad was supposed to appear in today's edition of The Oregonian, but I haven't managed to find it yet.
Anyone had any luck tracking it down? Or did the County manage to convince the paper to cancel it after all?
Comments (2)
Dave Mazza on 24 Oct 2003
The county got a stay on the judge's order.
The One True b!X on 24 Oct 2003
Well yes, I covered that earlier.