March 08, 2004
(Updated) Neighborhood Rebellion Against Leonard Begins
Six Candidates File For Commissioner No. 4 With One Day To Spare
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
One day before the filing deadline, six more candidates have filed to run against incumbent Commissioner Randy Leonard for his Commissioner No. 4 position.
Readers might have noticed Henry Stern's "City Matters" column recently passing along the initial news that neighborhood activists with various grievances against Leonard were preparing to stage something of a revolt against the Commissioner by running an entire set of candidates against him in the upcoming May primary election.
That multiple-candidate campaign got underway today. Embarassingly, we were tipped off by this item of all things.
First up is Frank Dixon of northwest Portland. According to his filing form (pdf), Dixon is an attorney with experient in state and city government as well as the private sector. Dixon also was once president of the Northwest District Association, and a member of various citizens groups.
Second, we have Leonard Gard. According to his filing form (pdf), Gard is a land use specialist with SW Neighborhoods, Inc, and an attorney.
Third, there's Mark Lloyd Lakeman. According to his filing form (pdf), Lakeman is a self-employed building designer -- presumably, given his email address, working with The City Repair Project.
Fourth, there's Paul Leistner. According to this filing form (pdf), Leistner is engaged in doctoral studies at Portland State University, in the field of urban studies and policiy analysis. He has served on various citizens groups, and is past president of the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association.
Fifth, we have Bonny McKnight. According to her filing form (pdf), McKnight is a fiscal/administrative manager. She has served on various citizens groups.
Sixth and finally, there's Scott Stephens. According to his filing form (pdf), Stephens is a utility billing analyst.
More on this peculiar electoral development as the local media picks it up, and when we hear back from the various candidates involved in the mass anti-Leonard campaign.
Update
There's controversy already. In a campaign release this evening, Randy Leonard says:
I am deeply disappointed to learn that the letterhead used by five of my opponents announcing their candidacy to the Portland City Council�falsely represented that the Coalition for a Livable Future, which includes 60 of Portland's most progressive nonprofit organizations, supports their campaigns for the Portland City Council.� The Coalition confirmed to my office today that they were unaware�that their letterhead is being used by the five candidates.� The Coalition has�demanded an immediate retraction of comments on their letterhead and ordered the 5 candidates to cease associating their candidacies with the Coalition.�
In his statement, Leonard draws an ironic comparison between the candidates' calls for open and accountable government and their apparently-fraudulent of another organization's name. He also argues that such improper use could be a violation of Oregon election law.
"While I look forward a vigorous campaign that well give Portlanders a clear choice on the direction they want Portland to follow," says Leonard. "I am deeply concerned that the tactics these five candidates have employed as they head out of the starting gate are harbingers of what is to come."
It should also be noted that Leonard refers to five candidates, so perhaps one of the above is not part of the rebellion. But, as I said, I missed this story altogether today, so I'm still playing serious catch-up.
Update
And it continues. Below is the text of a message sent out by Paul Leistner:
FYI. The press release I sent you Sunday afternoon and this morning included an attachment that mistakenly included a header and footer from the Coalition for a Livable Future.
No formal relationship exists between the six community candidates who filed today to run against Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard and the Coalition for a Livable Future.
More precisely, we got this in a message from also-candidate Frank Dixon, which Dixon sent as a response to every recipient of Leonard's original message. Dixon says, in part: "Commissioner Leonard�s opening volley in this campaign typifies his political and managerial style."
Update
And still more from the exchange, in the form of a response to Dixon from Leonard:
I appreciate your reply.� However, a member of the Coalition for a Livable Future informed my office today that the letterhead was "cut and pasted" from an earlier press release sent out by them.� It is hard to understand how this was an accident because of the number of actions that would need to be completed such as deleted the original content and then inserting the language in the press release before it was sent.
He ends by saying Portlanders would be served by "a free spirited debate of the issues as long as we all play by the rules."
Update
Here is the relevant portion of the candidates' press release, as it pertains to Leonard's comments on it:
City Commissioner Randy Leonard has angered many people in our city. He has systematically ignored community input and appointed friends and cronies without appropriate qualifications to positions in city bureaus. He uses his office to do special favors for friends and campaign contributors and ignores important review processes and regulations. Commissioner Leonard also consistently fails to fully explore and understand the impacts of his proposals and actions. He has damaged employee morale and effectiveness in his bureaus. Portland cannot afford another four years of Commissioner Leonard.
"Commissioner Leonard," the release asserts, "is dragging our city government back into the cronyism, special favors, and ineffective governance Portlanders rejected 30 years ago."
Posted at 07:01 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
The Mike Wrathell Project on 09 Mar 2004
My email exchange with Mike Wrathell is found here. Basically, I threw up a flippant comment on an election race I was hardly cognicent of. I wasn't thinking about the almighty power of vanity google searches. Where does this take...
Comments (7)
Jack Bog on 08 Mar 2004
If you really want to unseat an incumbent, why would you run five people for the same slot? Waste of time.
Amanda Fritz on 08 Mar 2004
Not at all a waste of time. Think it through - the strategy is brilliant, and possibly without precedent. These six people are running against the incumbent in a collaborative manner. They are all campaigning only against the incumbent, not against each other. They are giving the electorate a real choice between six respected community leaders, with the intent of collectively winning 50% + 1 vote. Then whoever comes in second gets the support of all the others for the runoff in November.
They haven't presumed to pre-select only one candidate - they trust the electorate to pick the best. They can each campaign in the local area they're best known, over the short two month primary season, thereby overcoming the incumbent's name familiarity advantage. And unlike the Democratic primary contenders, they won't be bashing each other. Instead, six people will be out sharing their concerns about the incumbent.
Still think it's a waste of time, Jack? Perhaps for Randy Leonard supporters, it is. For democracy and citizen participation, it rocks.
lisha on 08 Mar 2004
You would do it because no individual candidate has enough campaign money or sway to be competition, but 6 individual candidates with small budgets drawing small numbers of votes each might be enough to prevent Leonard from winning a majority, thus forcing a runoff in November.
lisha
Jack Bog on 09 Mar 2004
Interesting strategy -- five candidates all saying the same thing? Without precedent perhaps, but I don't know if it "rocks." How do you score points against an incumbent on name familiarity grounds by crowding the ballot with five more no-names rather than just one or two?
I guess we'll see in May. There'll probably be a runoff, but the May tally will probably be something like Leonard 42 percent, five candidates with 10 percent each, the rest of the stragglers sharing the other 8 percent. You've hassled Randy, but you won't beat him in the general election that way.
Somebody should order Randy a vintage XFL football jersey from that "He hate me" guy. He obviously has p*ssed off the neighborhood meeting set.
Gary Marschke on 09 Mar 2004
"Commissioner Leonard’s opening volley in this campaign typifies his political and managerial style."
I certainly hope so because that's what we've come to expect from him: pull no punches, take no prisoners, bow to no sacred cows. And most importantly, don't try to put one over on him. His roots are in the street and his style reflects that in kind of a Bud Clark meets Jesse Ventura way. I like it even if I may not always agree with it.
Isaac Laquedem on 09 Mar 2004
Portland voters didn't reject cronyism 30 years ago; they traded one group of cronies for another.
Councilors may come and councilors may go, but whoever holds office will have the ability to tell friend from foe.
Stephanie Stephens on 15 Mar 2004
Why do we let the media frame the way in which we view candidates for public office? While these candidates have one thing in common -- the desire to beat Randy Leonard -- they are obviously five individuals with various backgrounds and positions. Personally, I have known Paul Leistner for many years, and, while serving as the City Club's Research Director, he was incredibly fair and thorough in his research. He is about the least angry "activist" (if you can call him that) in Portland. I am sure the other candidates have qualities equally as compelling. We should research the candidates; not simply regurgitate and debate what the media print. Personally, I am glad to have a choice!