May 08, 2004
Endorsement: None Of The Above For Commissioner No. 4
Conscientiously Objecting To A Foul, Uninspiring, And Disappointing Race
Inevitably, the headline on this item will prompt some readers to view this endorsement as something of a cop-out. Our job here it to bring to bear the best of our ability upon the task of explaining why this is the only call we can make.
Certainly, this race will be considered something of a historic one, given the unique strategy employed by neighborhood activists in an attempt to unseat the incumbent. In essence, these insurgent candidates seek to split the vote enough to force a November runoff between the incumbent and whichever of the insurgents receives the most votes.
And, unlike the incumbent who seems to take an odd sort of umbrage with the very idea of his opponent' approach, we don't see it as much different than a normal primary. Think of the incumbent as being from one party, and the insurgents as being the candidates of another party competing to see which of them will run against him.
Unfortunately, in addition to being something of a historic campaign, it's also been one of the dirtiest and most personal we've seen in the admittedly-short time we've been watching Portland politics.
Given the unique nature of the race, and the unique nature of our endorsement (which itself is not quite what you might expect), we're going to take a slightly different approach this time, and try to dig down into each side of this campaign.
The Insurgents
There is certainly no shortage of talent or intelligence amongst the insurgent candidates and other opponents. For our own purposes, we had managed to narrow down our consideration to three of them: Frank Dixon, Mark Lakeman, and Paul Leistner.
This is not meant to disparage the others, but with the possible exception of long-time community activist Bonny McKnight, we're not convinced that the others are ready for elected office. McKnight failed to make our short list mainly because her frequent focus on the accomplishments of other women (Betty Roberts, Vera Katz, etc.) rather than her own made it difficult to get a clear sense of McKnight herself.
Amongst the candidates on our short list, Leistner was the first to be crossed off. While we were particularly drawn by his history as research director for the City Club of Portland -- certainly a worthwhile background for a potential member of City Council -- he was the first candidate we saw exhibiting a focus not on what he would do if elected, but on sometimes positively shrill attacks upon the incumbent.
Now, this is an election, and there's nothing wrong with drawing distinctions between oneself and one's opponent. But the nature, manner, and character of some of Leistner's attacks were enough for us to drop him from consideration early on.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment turned out to be Lakeman. In essence the guiding force behind The City Repair Project, Lakeman brought to the race some of the most creative ways of looking at the City's problems.
Then we watched his performance at the Friday candidates forum sponsored by Southeast Uplift.
Prior to the event, we had thought that Leistner's personalization of the attacks against the incumbent were unseemly, but they pale in comparison to how badly Lakeman managed to damage his own character on Friday night. As we said, it's one thing to draw distinctions. But it's altogether something different to repeat ugly characterizations made by City staffers, or to question whether the incumbent needs to assistance of helpful graphics in order to understand something.
No matter how much Lakeman has going for him, no matter how creative his approach to issues, this compulsion to demean himself, the campaign process, and his opponent eliminated him from our short list in the course of a single hour.
In many ways, the insurgent to which we had been paying the most attention was Dixon. Outside of Lakeman, he had seemed to be doing the most to present a campaign that was more about himself than about the incumbent.
But then we received a report that at a recent forum, he was the one going on the attack -- almost as if the insurgents take turns. And then his performance at this past Friday's forum struck us in three ways: It utterly failed to inspire us; it, too, seemed to slight the incumbent rather than draw distinctions; and much of it seemed unfocused and oddly mechanical.
We only had three people on our short list of the insurgent candidates -- and we managed to eliminate them all. That leaves only one side of this race left to consider.
The Incumbent
Our own view of Randy Leonard is a bit more complex than the one held by his opponents.
On the plus side, we appreciate how well he has articulated Constitutional issues on matters such as parks exclusions, the PATRIOT Act, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. His change of opinion on Dignity Village after visiting the community is also commendable. We also, unlike his opponents, support his pilot project involving "mini City Halls" in Portland's neighborhoods to make accessing services easier for more people.
On the other hand, in a broader sense, we do feel he is a poor fit for the culture specific to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement, which simply cannot be handled like other bureaus. And in the focus on "customer service," the reason for the bureaus very existence -- Portland's ongoing experiment with institutionalized neighborhood involvement -- has gotten lost in the shuffle.
There are also the continuing controversies over his handling of the Bureau of Licenses and the Bureau of Development Services. Here, our position is trickier than that of his opponents, because we simply believe that the jury is still out, and the story not fully told. Much of these conflicts remain bogged down in a "he said, he said" state, and the end results of all the reviews, appeals, and lawsuits that have yet to play out will, unfortunately, not be known until well after the May 18 primary election. So, in many ways, it's more difficult to factor in these controversies one way or the other than both Leonard's supporters and detractors would have us believe.
We are also concerned with Leonard's campaign finances. Overwhelmingly, a massive numbers of the contributions to his campaign have been in the range of $1,000 and more -- more than several of $5,000 to $10,000 -- and many of those from developers and real estate firms.
We won't assert that there has been a direct influence upon his performance on City Council, but the utter imbalance present in his campaign finance reports is an exact example of what makes politics seem to corrupt to so many people. The appearance alone sullies the process.
But for us, much of the above in the end was irrelevant. For us, more important was that for all of the ugly and personal attacks of his opponents, Leonard himself crossed a line which no politician or elected official should ever be permitted to cross.
What follows below are three paragraphs from a March 9 story in The Oregonian which discussed the campaign for the Commissioner No. 4 position:
Leonard also bristled at the new candidates' implied criticism of his appointment of a childhood friend, Jimmy Brown, to head up the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.
He said Brown brought a long history of work with the city and Multnomah County in Portland's neighborhoods, and only generates skepticism because he is African American.
"These are a group of people that will clearly say anything and do anything," Leonard said. "I think that they'll find in the end, they will marginalize themselves."
Further, here are two paragraphs from another Oregonian story, this one from a month later, on April 9:
Last year, Leonard appointed Jimmy Brown to replace David Lane as director of the neighborhood office after Lane announced he was moving to Hawaii. Lane, who said he loved working for Leonard, left at a time when neighborhood activists were fuming at Leonard for trying to create neighborhood service centers.
Several of those critics are now running against him and question Brown's qualifications. That leaves Leonard livid. He said Brown has 30 years' experience with the city and Multnomah County, and that the director would not face those questions if he weren't an African American.
We ourselves have heard Leonard make this contention at least once. It should be blatantly clear what he's doing when he makes it: In the face of criticism (be it legitimate or not) of one of his decisions, he opts not to make a counter-argument, but to accuse his opponents of being racist.
(Not only that, he then has the gall to accuse his opponents of being "people that will clearly say anything and do anything" -- thereby compounding the first sin with the additional one of rank hypocrisy.)
There are few things in politics which we consider to be of the "one strike and you're out" variety, but this is one of them. Make a cynical political use of race such as the one Leonard has employed more than once in this campaign, and you are automatically removed from consideration.
This is not just another example of Leonard's penchant for shooting off his mouth. In general, we've grown accustomed to that, as has much of the City.
This is different. This is ugly. This is damaging to politics. And this is wrong. And just to spread our disgust around: The Oregonian, Willamette Week, and The Portland Mercury should all be ashamed of themselves for rewarding it.
All of which means we are left with what in the world to do with our endorsement.
None Of The Above
When we say we're endorsing None Of The Above for the Commissioner No. 4 position, we are not arguing that people should not cast a ballot in this race. We don't believe in encouraging people to not vote.
We mean this endorsement in the most literal way possible. In every race on your ballot, there is a write-in slot. What we intend by this endorsement is to encourage voters to tell these candidates that we deserve better than they have given us during this campaign.
Mark the oval next to the write-in slot, and then write "None Of The Above" in that slot.
Readers may be asking if this is legitimate, and what it means in terms of counting the votes. Well, looking at the City Code, 2.08.040 City Offices simply says, in part:
B. The Mayor, Auditor and Commissioners shall be nominated at the Primary Election and elected at the General Election, subject to provisions in Charter Section 2-206 and Chapter 3, Article 1 concerning filling vacancies in office and provisions in Chapter 2.08.160 concerning absence of a nominee after the Primary Election. A City candidate who receives a majority of the votes cast for that office at the Primary Election shall run as the sole nominee in the General Election. If no candidate receives a majority, the two candidates receiving the most votes for that office will run in the General Election. In case no nomination is made at the Primary Election, nominations may be made at the General Election, and any candidate receiving a majority of votes shall be deemed elected at the General Election.
"If no candidate receives a majority," it reads, "the two candidates receiving the most votes for that office will run in the General Election."
In other words, a write-in vote for None Of The Above must necessarily count against any candidate managing to receive a majority of the votes in the primary, and in essence is a vote in favor of a November runoff.
It also, unlike a simple vote for one of Leonard's opponents, would send the message that voters in Portland do not support the type of campaign so many of the candidates in this race seem insistent upon running.
And so, because this campaign has combined an inability to clearly inspire with a trend into an ugly and foul form of politics, we endorse a write-in for None Of The Above for the Commissioner No. 4 position.
Comments (41)
Arya on 08 May 2004
Not bad, not bad.
Amanda on 08 May 2004
I'm sorry to see you dismiss Bonny McKnight because of not being able to get a sense of who she is. Bonny, as a long-time East County neighborhood activist, would be an especially good replacement for Commissioner # 4. Her lack of playing to the audience would be a refreshing change in politics - she's a do-er, not a talker. But I agree it's been hard to hear that in a crowded field.
I know Bonny, and believe she would make an excellent City Commissioner. Perhaps she's the best choice for those who follow the rationale in your "None of the above" recommendation, but want to opt for one of the people on the ballot regardless? You'd find out a lot more about her in the run-off.
Gary Marschke on 08 May 2004
While I agree that playing the race card without substantiation is crossing the line I also disagree that Leonard did it without "offering a counter argument." He has been quoted several times making a case for Jimmy Brown's qualifications. The very paragraphs you use to cite his "hyprocisy" included "He said Brown brought a long history of work with the city and Multnomah County in Portland's neighborhoods" and "He said Brown has 30 years' experience with the city and Multnomah County,". Clearly Leonard does attempt to make a case for Brown's qualifications even though he is too quick to pull the racist trigger.
I might also point out the significant lack of racial diversity in the majority of Portland's neighborhood associations including those represented by the Super Six. I would venture to guess that is a result of many factors not the least of which is a perceived lack of common ground. I might even suggest that perhaps also contributes to a bit of tension between the NAs and an ONI Director they perceive as having priorities that, like the Director himself, don't exactly mirror those of many active NA members. It's not racist, it's just reality and one that Portland is increasingly (and quite uncomfortably) coming face-to-face with. I applaud Randy for recognizing that and practicing a policy of racial diversity especially in a position that serves so many of those not otherwise represented.
The One True b!X on 08 May 2004
There's unquestionably an issue with diversity when it comes to the City's neighborhood associations. Some of that is a matter of the approach of those within the associations, some of it is a matter of inter-cultural communications skills, and some of that is a matter of resources.
There are efforts underway to try to address these issues, however.
Worldwide Pablo on 08 May 2004
Not to throw cold water on this lovely, original idea, but it seems doubtful that "None of the Above" votes would ever be counted. [Tallied, perhaps, but not counted. Big difference.]
The code clearly states that votes are for candidates. Candidates are persons. "None of the Above" by any definition is not a person. [In fact, one could argue, the very essence of "NOTA" would be a non-person, right?]
"NOTA" is a novel idea and probably worth exploring. But it is created of whole cloth, and absent any constitutional foundation.
But then, stranger things have happened in Portland...
The One True b!X on 08 May 2004
Well, a write-in for NOTA could never be used to derail an election altogether -- i.e. if it won the majority of votes in the general election. But in ths primary, write-ins are counted as a batch (meaning all write-ins are counted as a single category) -- in essence a vote for "write-in." Which means they count towards the vote totals. Which means they affect whether or not a candidate on the ballot captures 51% of the vote.
The One True b!X on 08 May 2004
I should say "in theory."
The One True b!X on 08 May 2004
And even in the event that the Elections Division interprets the law to provide that write-ins for NOTA cannot count towards the total number of votes cast, it would certainly be possible to request a tally of such NOTA votes, which would then be available to demonstrate what the actual vote would have been had the Division included the NOTA votes in the official totals.
Amanda on 08 May 2004
Gary:
Whether or not the neighborhood association system is diverse isn't the issue. Commissioner Leonard claimed the challengers questioned the choice of Jimmy Brown for Director because of racist motives. I've never seen any of them quoted questioning the ONI appointment at all, and have never heard any of them say anything disparaging about Mr. Brown in public or in private. b!X's quotes are of Leonard claiming they objected, not statements of the candidates themselves. Neighborhood volunteers I've spoken with list the ONI Director choice as one of the few things Commissioner Leonard has done that we enthusiastically support.
The challengers have questioned the award of $200,000 to a friend to investigate the housing inspectors, and they've questioned the appointment of one of Commissioner Leonard's staff to be deputy director of ONI, a newly created position. Even if they ever questioned the Jimmy Brown appointment, the unfounded allegation of racism in that instance is, as b!X rightly points out, over the line.
Jack Bog on 08 May 2004
Hey, just a couple of thoughts: This is supposed to be a "nonpartisan" election. When six people get together and form a united front, vowing to throw their support to whoever makes it to a runoff -- is that a political "party"?
And are you sure that a write-in for a nonperson counts in the 50%-plus-1 tally? Maybe on the first count, but on a recount (if it were close)?
The One True b!X on 08 May 2004
And are you sure that a write-in for a nonperson counts in the 50%-plus-1 tally? Maybe on the first count, but on a recount (if it were close)?
I'm not even certain that it applies in the first instance -- I'm only convinced that the law as I read it could be interpreted to allow it to be counted. It is arguably possible that it would not be counted in the count of total write-in votes (they don't even do a breakdown of the write-ins unless they need to), which would leave the number of NOTA votes as only a rhetoric "weapon."
Randy Leonard on 08 May 2004
B!X-
While I respect the reasoning you used to reach the conclusion you did in the Council Position #4 race, I believe out of fairness to you and your readers I should clarify my comments regarding Jimmy Brown.
When Dr. David Lane told me that he and his family were moving to Hawaii and would therefore be resigning my staff, I immediately began asking leaders in the community about possible candidates to take his place. Jimmy Brown’s name arose in that process.
When six of my opponents filed for office, they stated, amongst other things, that I had hired Jimmy Brown because he was a “crony” of mine and “was not qualified” to be the director of ONI.
Jimmy and I went to Irvington grade school in NE Portland together from the second through the fourth grade. I saw and/or talked with him four times in the intervening forty years. To this day I have not met his wife of nearly 30 years nor any of his children.
When Jimmy graduated from Lewis and Clark College in 1974, he began his work with the city of Portland and eventually moved to Multnomah County. Jimmy specialized in work on gang and juvenile justice issues. I spoke with top officials in the City and County about Mr. Brown’s performance and what I learned about him made me believe his qualifications and experience would bring the perspective, energy and dedication I was looking for in an ONI director. The feedback I received about Jimmy Brown was typified by one official who told me “it would be a coup if you could get Jimmy Brown as the ONI director”.
I then called Jimmy and asked if he would be interested. We met and discussed the job. I asked him to meet with the leaders of each of the neighborhood coalitions and discuss with them his resume and vision for the position. After he did that, I called each of them and asked for their impressions of Jimmy. He received unanimous and enthusiastic support from everyone with whom he met.
When I heard my opponents’ allegation that Jimmy was not qualified to be director of ONI, I was offended…not for myself but for Jimmy. I said then and I believe now that they would not have made the same comments about his qualifications if Jimmy Brown were a white man.
I believe that racism, sometimes subtle, at times even sub-conscious, is alive and present in our community. When I see it, I try to confront it head on. You may disagree with me, or you may interpret my statements as politically motivated, but I stand by my statements as I stand by my selection of Jimmy Brown as the ONI Director.
Jon on 09 May 2004
Jeeezus, b!X, that is a man who stands by his decisions. I don’t see too many other of City Hall’s finest coming on here to defend themselves?
I have encountered Randy on more than one occasion. And I find him to more than a fine human being. He ALWAYS stand’s up for what he believes in no matter how politically damaging it might be.
You gave the highly politicized license bureau as a reason. While I tend to agree that it has become a nasty, he said she said issue, I believe the Mayor, and not Randy is to blame. Ask Randy about that ANYTIME, and I am sure he will tell you straight, the Mayor, however, will not.
Randy may "shoot of at the mouth" at times, but isn't that a breath of fresh air in this city?
To me, Randy has done what he promised. He would shake things up, and that he has done. He has stood up to the same 'ol bureaucratic bullcrap that has ruled this city for too long.
Do I think it could be done better? Maybe, but Randy is MY man for Commissioner No. 4.
Rob R. on 09 May 2004
Commissioner Leonard is the only member of City Council that does anything. I would challenge you to put his record of accomplishment and action against any member of the Council, and you can use Randy's 2 years against several years of anyone else's term. The reason we do not have more elected officials who do what they say they will and stand by their convictions is that they find when they get to office, the people empowered by the status quo punish them for it. I think that's sad.
Go Randy!
Rob R. on 09 May 2004
Commissioner Leonard is the only member of City Council that does anything. I would challenge you to put his record of accomplishment and action against any member of the Council, and you can use Randy's 2 years against several years of anyone else's term. The reason we do not have more elected officials who do what they say they will and stand by their convictions is that they find when they get to office, the people empowered by the status quo punish them for it. I think that's sad.
Go Randy!
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
You gave the highly politicized license bureau as a reason. While I tend to agree that it has become a nasty, he said she said issue, I believe the Mayor, and not Randy is to blame. Ask Randy about that ANYTIME, and I am sure he will tell you straight, the Mayor, however, will not.
Actually, I specifically did not give this as a reason. In fact, I specifically said that neither side should be able to use this as a reason for their position because the jury is still out on whether this was a valid and needed shake-up or abuse of power -- because there are still unresolved questions about it.
And remember, I also pointed out the positive things I believe Leonard has done. It's just that I have a "one strike and you're out" policy when it comes to smearing people as racists simply because the person they are criticizing happens to be an African-American.
Gary Marschke on 09 May 2004
Amanda and all:
You stated "Whether or not the neighborhood association system is diverse isn't the issue." In my opinion it IS the issue and likely the main reason for the challenges that exist between the current Leonard-led refocusing of ONI and the local Neighborhood Associations. I don't believe that any of the people involved are racist no more than I believe that racism doesn't exist in Portland. As I said, it's a reality and needs all the attention, resources and creativity we have and the best place to start is at the grass-roots neighborhood level.
pdxkona on 09 May 2004
Is it too late to run down to the courthouse and change my name to "None of The Above"?
Eva Mae on 09 May 2004
I’m wondering about your “one strike and you’re out” condemnation of Randy Leonard’s allegations that race is an underlying issue in his opponents’ opposition to Jimmy Brown as ONI Director. It seems to me that Leonard’s conclusions are remarkably similar to the conclusions you yourself drew during the public inquest into the Perez fatal police shooting. I seem to remember you concluding, with a high degree of certainty, that the only reason Perez was pulled over was because he was a black man, and that it was clear that racial profiling was at play. You may be right. You may also be wrong, but the fact that you have the guts to confront the possibility of such an insidious form of racism is to be commended. Based on Leonard’s comments, I believe he sincerely cannot understand why a man as eminently qualified as Jimmy Brown would be questioned as unqualified. He thinks the color of Brown’s skin is the reason for the questions. He may be right. He may also be wrong, but like you he should be commended for confronting head-on a possibility that deserves consideration before it’s dismissed as a mere political ploy. It is possible to make assumptions about people based on their skin color without consciously being a racist. Some call it profiling, others elitism, but in either case it is demeaning to people of color. Maybe you should ask the members of the African-American community why some of Leonard’s opponents think Jimmy Brown is not qualified to be the ONI director. What you would hear should not surprise you.
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
In my opinion it IS the issue and likely the main reason for the challenges that exist between the current Leonard-led refocusing of ONI and the local Neighborhood Associations.
Well, it is an issue that needs to be addressed, but I'm not sure I believe it's the reason for tensions between Leonard, ONI, and the associations.
The neighborhood system needs to be collaborative when making changes of any sort, and my impression has been that Leonard's management approach just doesn't suit ONI and the associations.
One of my own criticisms against the associations has been their inability to separate their issues with Leonard's management style at ONI from individual ideas such as the neighborhood services centers. While it's of course true that ONI should not become so fixated upon a customer service model that it forgets the reason why it exists -- the institutionalization of neighborhood and public involvement -- to dismiss the idea out of hand just because you don't like the commissioner in charge of ONI is an action that has always irked me.
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
I seem to remember you concluding, with a high degree of certainty, that the only reason Perez was pulled over was because he was a black man, and that it was clear that racial profiling was at play.
I never expressed a firm conclusion that Perez was pulled over because he was a black man, although since it's been mentioned, it is true that blacks are pulled over for traffic stops more frequently than whites. Others have commented here that the "this car doesn't belong in this neighborhood" observations by the officers seems somewhat suspicious.
Questioning whether or not race is a factor in traffic stops in Portland is legitimate because evidence and history backs the hypothesis.
But it's an entirely different situation to say that political criticisms about someone who happens to be black must be because he is black. It hsould also be pointed out that the criticisms of Brown were actually crticisms about Leonard's hiring of a personal friend, and isn't the first time he's done that. The charges were more about cronyism than about qualification. But because that trend of hiring friends might be perceived poorly, it is my judgment that Leonard found it convenient that this particular friend happened to be black, because it gave him an opportunity to smear his opponents.
no one in particular on 09 May 2004
Jon wrote:
I don’t see too many other of City Hall’s finest coming on here to defend themselves?
Nonetheless, there are some others that have posted here.
Randy Leonard on 09 May 2004
"...appointed friends and cronies without appropriate qualifications to positions in city bureaus."
That is a quote taken from the March 8, 2008 press release issued by the six neighborhood activists. The day of their press conference, when asked by Henery Stern of the Oregonian who they were referring to in their press release, one of the candidates said "Jimmy Brown" to which each of the others nodded in the affirmative. When asked by the Oregonian for my response, you quoted accurately in your piece what I said.
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
And just so readers are clear, it wasn't me who claimed that the insurgent candidates never criticized Brown, it was a reader who posted a comment here to that effect.
Randy Leonard on 09 May 2004
"...appointed friends and cronies without appropriate qualifications to positions in city bureaus."
That is a quote taken from the March 8, 2004 press release issued by the six neighborhood activists. The day of their press conference, when asked by Henry Stern of the Oregonian who they were referring to in their press release, one of the candidates said "Jimmy Brown" to which each of the others nodded in the affirmative.
I explained in my earlier posting my relationship with Jimmy Brown. I will not repeat it here. I also explained his depth of experience in my earlier posting and I will also refer the readers to that more in depth explanation.
When asked by the Oregonian for my response, you quoted accurately in your piece what I said and I stand by that statement.
Randy Leonard on 09 May 2004
"...appointed friends and cronies without appropriate qualifications to positions in city bureaus."
That is a quote taken from the March 8, 2004 press release issued by the six neighborhood activists. The day of their press conference, when asked by Henry Stern of the Oregonian who they were referring to in their press release, one of the candidates said "Jimmy Brown" to which each of the others nodded in the affirmative.
I explained in my earlier posting my relationship with Jimmy Brown. I will not repeat it here. I also explained his depth of experience in my earlier posting and I will also refer the readers to that more in depth explanation.
When asked by the Oregonian for my response, you quoted accurately in your piece what I said and I stand by that statement.
Amanda on 09 May 2004
I said I'd never heard the candidates quoted saying anything disparaging about Jimmy Brown, in public or private. Now I have, if they did include him as one of the "crony" appointments in their press conference. But still, how does that make them racist? They've complained about the $200,000 payment to the private investigator friend - what race is he? They've questioned the qualifications about the new deputy director of ONI, who is white. If their only beef were Jimmy Brown's appointment, then perhaps racism should be discussed. Since it isn't, b!X is right to call the foul charge out.
Bonny McKnight works in the Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs building in North Portland. She manages a non-profit job placement program, serving people in the local area. Do you think she'd have lasted there one week if she had any racist tendencies? And why would she choose the low pay such work offers, in taking an active role in combating the problems in that area?
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
It's not been posted as a comment, but this afternoon I received email from Commissioner Leonard. I am going to post it here (nothing in it says "off the record") because (1) it should be here and (2) I have something to say in response to it that's important. What follows in blockquoted text is the email (where he quotes me, I put those in italics):
Other readers, obviously, are free to weigh in as they see fit. Me, I want to point out how his email is not only self-contradictory, it contradicts what he posted publicly here.
One the one hand, at the beginning, he writes:
In and of itself, this struck me as entirely and quite obviously self-contradictory. And then at the end, he writes:
(I'll leave aside for the moment that they have also criticized other of his hirings, regardless of race -- the legitimacy of which I am not weighing in on here.)
In other words, after saying (bizarrely) that he never called his opponents racists, but merely said they criticized Brown because he was black -- which is a single paragraph in self-contradiction -- he goes on at the end to once again assert that the only reason they criticized Brown was because he was black.
Well, which is it, Commissioner? Did they criticize him because of his race or not? Let's say, for argument's sake, that they did. That would be racism. And let's say then, for argument's sake, that they didn't? How is charging that they did not accusing them of racism?
But Leonard's email also contradicts his arguments here in the reader comments, where he wrote:
(Again, I'll leave aside for the moment that they have also criticized other of his hirings, regardless of their race -- and again, I'm not weighing in on the validity of those criticisms here.)
Here, he clearly is arguing that his statements about why his opponents criticized Brown (his race) were valid because some racism is subtle. In other words, the implications, again, of this particular bit is that his opponents were being racist -- even if only subtly.
Reader can draw their own conclusions. But what the above literary dance says to me is that I struck a nerve and Leonard doesn't know how to extricate himself from the clear fact that he accused his opponents of racism now that it's been outed for what it was.
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
One other point. Leonard's opponents (rightly ot wrongly on the merits) have been criticizing his management decisions as a whole. What Leonard is doing by taking the criticism of Brown out of that context is enabling himself to point out that the man is African-American, and so therefore their criticisms must be related to this fact.
If the only management decision Leonard made that his opponents were criticizing was his hiring of Brown, maybe -- maybe -- the issue of race would be a valid one to raise.
But in reality, their criticism of Brown's hiring is part of a larger and clearly-communicated wholesale criticism of Leonard's management.
So I ask readers: What is taking a single criticism out of context, and doing so by choosing the one criticism that involved a person who happens to be black, if not race-baiting?
Fenbar on 09 May 2004
While the commentary here may be more articulate than what I am used to reading on portland.indymedia, the analysis is far from being more insightful!
Voting "none of the above" can be an appropriate response to a lack of candidates the voter finds worthy of their vote. However in this case, we actually have several candidates who are worthy of our votes!
Of them all, Mark Lakeman is my choice.
His experience actually working with people and having a creative vision for community makes him an excellent candidate.
I resent the fact that corporate newspapers as well as blog reporters act like their analysis of a candidate's behavior at an evening forum or a one hour endorsement meeting-- and a glance at their bank accounts-- is all they need to give them the big thumbs up or down. Like they were Siskel and Ebert rating a movie!
If the author bothered to get out into the heart of the community and actually talked to people with whom Mark has worked, and investigated his impact on our Portland neighborhoods, he might arrive at a more informed conclusion than "none of the above."
Dig deeper and you will find a citizen activist who still has hope for our city. Mark Lakeman has some big ideas that would put the heart back in our town, and get it pumping!
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
I'm well aware of Lakeman's qualifications. But did you see his performance at Friday's candidates forum? I did. It was profoundly ugly and demeaned the entire process. He should have known better.
If you feel comfortable voting for someone who is more than willing to spend that much time smearing an opponent rather than engaging in discourse, please do.
But much as I won't endorse a candidate who brazenly and falsely drops race into a campaign, I won't endorse a candidate who savages his own credibility by behaving the way Lakeman did.
Fenbar on 09 May 2004
I was at the forum on friday night.
In terms of "engaging in discourse" you must have noticed that these neighborhood activists have tried hard to engage in discourse with Leonard. What do they all say? "He just doesn't listen!" What does Leonard say? "I listen, I just don't agree!" Engaging in discourse is difficult with Leonard. I've seen it a number of times at City Hall hearings. Leonard is lacking a certain talent in hearing/considering/communicating with others.
I did not see Lakeman spending as much time smearing Leonard as speaking about his ideas, as you suggest. The majority of his time, he spoke his platform. Yes, there was a moment-- which built on the energy of the evening-- when Lakeman expressed that he really wanted to understand what it would take to get Leonard to really listen to his constituents. And I thought,"Good for him for standing up to Leonard!" His comments about BDS employees' response to his "shaking things up" was in the context of Leonard taking credit for "getting things done." I saw his response as calling the question of what the effect of "shaking things up" entailed. It did not feel like the mudslinging you suggest. Certainly not to the point where I would no longer suggest people to vote for him!
Leonard is a seasoned professional, right? Lakeman is new at this politics game. Give the guy a break! How will we ever get any people in office who aren't "dressed in politics" if we are going to evaluate them in such an overly critical way?
Lakeman is a gem in a quarry of mediocrity.
I challenge you to take a little more time to address his vision and his ability to take action for our city. Check out the work he has done. Talk to some of the folks who have worked with him in the community.
Give your readers the chance to make an informed decision, not give up on their choices.
The One True b!X on 09 May 2004
As I said, I am aware of Lakeman's qualifications and his background. And if I didn't want people to start going off and making up their own minds, I would not link to all of the candidates' websites, giving readers a first avenue into beginning to do their own research.
Folks, we can't go around complaining about how ugly and personal politics has become and then make excuses for ugly and personal attacks just because we happen to support someone.
Mark Lakeman on 09 May 2004
b!x,
Regarding items above...
First, concerning criticism of ONI director Jimmy Brown, I don't believe that the six neighborhood leaders have ever questioned his qualifications. I know that I have not. You are right to observe that our critique of RL is broad. Concerning Mr. Brown, none of us take issue with his race, nor would we ever. As I said the other night, until Randy made an issue of his race, I did not even know Jimmy Brown was an African American. I'm glad to read your take on the matter, partly because it has not even been discussed elsewhere, and because it is inappropriate to have an elected official use race in this way. When the issue of Jimmy Brown's race was raised by commissioner Leonard, as I said the other night, it was disturbing. It was a strange installment in what has been a disappointing conversation with Randy, lasting for over a year.
You are right to observe that it's not my M.O. to attack. I am lucky in the sense that I work almost continuously with people who are good communicators, and people who are working hard at being good listeners. It's been appalling to observe the distress of many of these people, many in the neighborhood system, as they have been disenfranchised by the commissioner. Believe it or not, the other night I did not feel that I was attacking him, rather I was saying some of the things that many, many people want him to hear. What I said was tame compared to the volume of what many more people are feeling.
When I referred to conversations I have had with people in his bureaus who characterize their experience under him negatively, I neglected to add that people in neighborhood associations across the city feel the same way, hurt and outraged, confined, left with few choices, and focused upon by a hostile entity who does not inquire or seek to understand before he charges.
When I referred to open public meetings, in which even the Oregonian was present, during which people were at wits end to try to be heard by the commissioner, they were indeed discussing his learning capacity, and actually wondering how he learns, whether by hearing or seeing images. I did not mean to smear him or attack him. However, I was referring to real public meetings and discussions. I am still personally upset that our commissioner is so aggressive and forceful that he does not notice how people are impacted by his choices, and that people are left wondering how to reach him. It embarrasses me to see such conversations have to take place.
The many people who are frustrated with Randy are not joking when they talk openly about their issues with the commissioner. They have been sincerely trying to work with him, but they are fed up. The fact that many communities asked the six of us to run against the incumbent reflects that too many people had had enough and could no longer imagine him as a leader. This is probably the fate of the autocrat, to alienate and then be rejected.
I came to the SEUL forum prepared to talk big picture ideas, about promoting greater involvement and engendering diversity. Instead of presenting my ideas, I found myself unable to continue to listen to Leonard's characterizations of his impact on BDS without challenging him. I also touched on his racism accusation against us, and I did refer to the public discussions about his learning capacity. Perhaps I did not effectively present these events in a way that communicated to you the deeper situation that the neighborhood association system has faced since commissioner Leonard took office. The scale and scope of the problem is beyond easy description, and I am struggling to find a way to both talk about important ideas, and to also help people understand what Randy's "shaking up" of city hall consists of.
b!x, I wish you were in our shoes. I respect your decision not to endorse anyone in this race. I very much respect that you see beyond what other media say they see. As for your endorsement, I think you'll find that I am worthy of another look. I guess that can wait until after May 18, but I will be looking for your help. The work of truly shaking up city government, sharing power, and building a stronger framework for sustainable culture will take a great deal of work on everyone's part.
Mark Lakeman
Arya on 10 May 2004
Kudos to Randy for fighting racism whenever he sees it(even when it might not be there), but there are many issues his opponents have brought up that he fails to address when he continues to use the hiring of Jimmy Brown as a lightning rod. Randy seems to consider this the focal point of the opponents' campaigns against him. I don't believe that it is. For Randy to continue to harp on this issue unfortunately makes him sound like a demagogue.
Anne Dufay on 10 May 2004
RE the statement: "One of my own criticisms against the associations has been their inability to separate their issues with Leonard's management style at ONI from individual ideas such as the neighborhood services centers. While it's of course true that ONI should not become so fixated upon a customer service model that it forgets the reason why it exists -- the institutionalization of neighborhood and public involvement -- to dismiss the idea out of hand just because you don't like the commissioner in charge of ONI is an action that has always irked me."
This one really mystifies me - perhaps you can tell me the source of this untrue assertion? The neighborhood associations, and their coalitions, are as diverse in their opinions regarding the neighborhood service center concept, as they are in every other way. Some like the idea very much, some are already, eagerly, piloting the program, some are neutral, waiting to see the roll-out, some are against the idea.
So you see, in this case (and so many others) "one size" does NOT fit all :-)
Lets ditch the simplistic sterotyping - then we really can hope to have the kind of high-quality discussion you are looking for.
Anne
Anne Dufay on 10 May 2004
RE the statement: "One of my own criticisms against the associations has been their inability to separate their issues with Leonard's management style at ONI from individual ideas such as the neighborhood services centers. While it's of course true that ONI should not become so fixated upon a customer service model that it forgets the reason why it exists -- the institutionalization of neighborhood and public involvement -- to dismiss the idea out of hand just because you don't like the commissioner in charge of ONI is an action that has always irked me."
This one really mystifies me - perhaps you can tell me the source of this untrue assertion? The neighborhood associations, and their coalitions, are as diverse in their opinions regarding the neighborhood service center concept, as they are in every other way. Some like the idea very much, some are already, eagerly, piloting the program, some are neutral, waiting to see the roll-out, some are against the idea.
So you see, in this case (and so many others) "one size" does NOT fit all :-)
Lets ditch the simplistic sterotyping - then we really can hope to have the kind of high-quality discussion you are looking for.
Anne
Anne Dufay on 10 May 2004
Gary Marschke writes, regarding the fact that Jimmy Brown, Director of ONI, is an African-American: "I might even suggest that perhaps also contributes to a bit of tension between the NAs and an ONI Director they perceive as having priorities that, like the Director himself, don't exactly mirror those of many active NA members."
You know, in our devotion to pushing ourselves further, to acknowledging our weaknesses and striving to improve, we neighborhood and coalition folk seem to have forgotten how to be proud of our successes - how to trumpet our heroes and heroines - to tell you who, from among us, we’re proud of - and just as importantly, who we are.
So, give me a minute, let me tell you a little about why it seems, from my perspective, so funny that you would presume a case of the vapors on the part of "active NA members" over the appointment of an African-American to a position of prominence in the NA system.
Now, it's truc, I haven't been everywhere, I haven't met everyone - but certainly I've seen enough to tell you with absolute certainty - there is no magic mirror that could reflect, in one person, the aims and priorities of "many active NA members."
Active neighborhood members have priorities that cover the block, the city, the nation, and the world. Some are devoted environmentalists. Some work hard for social justice. Some are land-use nerds of the greatest skill and achievement. Some are business owners. Some are seniors. Some struggle with medical and economic hardship. Some are renters and some are single moms.
And, some are African American. Some are Asian. Some are Latino or Russian or half-Amish (:-)) and some are gay or lesbian.
Sure, we can do even better, and believe me, we are working hard to do so. But regardless, already, today, there is no one face looking back at you out of that mirror.
In fact, today, the Portland neighborhood associations are proud of many of our leaders who are busting into civic prominence from communities of color or up from under the gender-glass ceiling - they are NA Board Presidents and Executive Directors. These "active NA members" are right now providing important leadership to our communities, some in very difficult times. They have already achieved the highest positions we have in the NA system.
In fact this historic capacity of the NA system to nurture future civic leaders is one of the most important reasons, imo, to continue to push for greater and greater access to all the groups currently underrepresented in city governence. I'm proud of the important steps we in the NA system have taken to date in this regard. I look forward to even greater successes tomorrow. And then --
Next step - City Council. That may be a bit tougher though, 'ya think?
Anne
Alicia on 15 May 2004
b!x as usual, your comments about the candidates for city council are very, very well-reasoned, intelligent, thoughtful and based on sound observation. I am always impressed with the quality of critique and argument that is presented here, whether or not I agree with everything asserted. And that's it - sheer praise for a fantastic publication. Keep up the good work.
-lisha
STEVE on 07 Jun 2004
Nothing like catching up with blogs a few weeks behind the crowd...but
I would just like to add to the comments suggesting that b!x may be using overly simplistic and uninformed criteria in his dismissal of the great candidates who ran against Leonard. It is astonishing and ironic that you dismiss 2 of the best, Leistner and Lakeman, for what you describe as ugly behavior. What's that they say about the truth? While your insights are often better than most press, perhaps the same limitations of getting good complete information are nevertheless present. Both Lakeman and Leistner are vastly qualified, fantastic communicators, and well respected by all who get to know them. There are certain things one might say about George Bush that might also appear ugly or demeaning. Or, they might appear to be the truth, based on a pattern of observed behavior.
I say write-in one of the candidates opposing Leonard, come next Nov.
The One True b!X on 07 Jun 2004
For what it's worth, in the general election, I would support a write-in effort. But it would need to be organized and pushed for real or it won't work.
In the primary, it was all about forcing a runoff, in which case write-ins still counted against Leonard when results were tallied. In the general, it's winner take all.
So any write-in for November can't be just "write in one of the candiates" -- it would need to be "write in one particular candidate in a concerted write-in campaign."