July 18, 2004

On Skepticism, Politics, And 'Non-Accusation Accusations'

More Cross-Commissioner Squabbling

Since we've reported (and, for that matter, joined) the criticisms of the possible political motivations behind Commissioner Francesconi's proposals regarding the Portland Police Bureau, it seems only fair that we address something raised by Commissioner Randy Leonard in his first post to BlueOregon overnight.

In that item, Leonard argues that if there are people raising questions of political motivation on Francesconi's part when it comes to that resolution, then it's fair to judge the Blackmer/Sten proposal on Clean Money reforms in the same light.

"To be fair, it is Erik who raised Jim's motives in the Police Accountability resolution," he writes in the reader comments to his item. "[N]ow others are raising that same issue re: Erik."

Before we continue, let us make one thing clear first: We of all people cannot tell anyone not to be skeptical of motivations. It would be utterly hypocritical of us to do so. But skepticism must be followed up with an examination of the facts as they are available.

First of all, while Leonard says that people are raising the issue of political motivations on the part of Sten, his item to BlueOregon is the first we've heard of it. Whether this is because it simply hasn't yet happened publicly, or because Leonard is actually the first to raise it, we can't say.

Secondly, Leonard goes on to say this: "Erik missing the filing deadline that the ordinance had to be filed by in order that the city council could refer it to the voters did nothing to reduce speculation as to whether the real goal is to address campaign finance or to try and embarass Jim."

Here we simply appear to have a conflict with the facts.

When we received the draft of the Clean Money report last Friday, we were told that credit for it should mainly go to City Auditor Gary Blackmer and Susan Francois from his office. In addition, the draft we received was sent out by the Auditor to staffers in Sten's office the day before, on July 8, which is also the same day that the memo on funding the proposal from the Office of Management & Finance is dated.

So to drop into conversation the assertion that Commissioner Sten missed the deadline, and perhaps did so intentionally, is not something that can follow from the facts on hand. It also appears to be prompted by a desire to delay the Clean Money proposal until after the general election. At one point Leonard says of the questions about Sten's motivation: "[A]ll the more reason to ackowledge the 'perception' (ironic given the subject) and wait until the new council takes office in January."

Problem is, he appears to be the first one to raise the motivation question when it comes to the Clean Money proposal. Not to be skeptical or anything, but that's sort of convenient.

Now, while our reminder (again, in the comments to the BlueOregon item) of the facts of the Auditor's prominence in the drafting of this report was met with the remark that "some have learned that the auditors office isn't as 'neutral' in political contests as one might hope" (and regardless of whether or not this is true), up until our reminder, the prior comments on the matter were all geared specifically towards questioning Sten's motives.

It will be argued by some, we suspect, that Leonard's remarks simply were about the legitimacy of raising skeptical questions, or about other people doing so. In politics, this is what could be deemed a "non-accusation accusation." It's Leonard raising these skeptical questions, and doing so without following through with a look at the facts.

Again: We do not dispute the legitimacy of raising skeptical questions. We do so ourselves, and people have also on occasion questioned our own motivations. That's all fair. We do, however, have a problem with "non-accusation accusations," and with not factoring either the facts or at least circumstantial evidence into the equation.

In the case of the Francesconi proposal regarding the Police Bureau, it wasn't merely the attempted introduction of the resolution which raised eyebrows, it was the fact that he tried to wrap himself in the name of an organization which had itself recently proposed Police Bureau reforms to the Council, but which, it turned out, did not in fact support Francesconi's resolution. That sort of thing sends up flares and only reinforces people's initial skepticism about his motivations.

On the other hand, the facts as we understand them today -- and as they were easily known last week, let alone overnight -- when it comes to the Clean Money proposal is that the timing (and therefore the missed deadline) is an artifact of the drafting process at the Auditor's office. Yet over at BlueOregon, the opportunity was taken to use a "non-accusation accusation" to plant the idea that Sten stalled the report out of political partisanship.

Of course, the other danger here is one of an infinitely-recursive skepticism. To wit: Sten questions the motivation of Francesconi's proposal. Is this because he supports Tom Potter? Leonard questions the motivation of Sten's proposal. Is this because he supports Francesconi? We question the motivation of Leonard's "non-accusation accusation." Is this because we dislike Francesconi and did not endorse Leonard during the primary campaign?

And so on.

As we've said several times already, we don't in any way dispute the legitimacy of being skeptical in the world of politics. We just happen to believe there should be some adherence or interest in ascertaining the facts of the matter in the process of doing so.

More, we believe that in these two particular cases, the evidence -- be it factual or circumstantial -- supports that skepticism in one case but apparently not in the other. And, yes, we question the motives behind the "non-accusation accusation" suddenly injected into the debate.

Posted at 02:23 PM | PermalinkComments (23) | TrackBacks (3)
More In 2004 Mayoral Campaign, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »

Comments (23)

  1. Bryan Francesconi on 18 Jul 2004

    B!X –

    Your characterizations of my father’s intentions are unfairly wrapped in the same rhetoric you claim to denounce throughout this article. You demand cold hard facts, just as you should. And yet, what factual support do you cite for your assertion that my father is merely playing politics? You say:

    “In the case of the Francesconi proposal regarding the Police Bureau, it wasn't merely the attempted introduction of the resolution which raised eyebrows, it was the fact that he tried to wrap himself in the name of an organization which had itself recently proposed Police Bureau reforms to the Council, but which, it turned out, did not in fact support Francesconi's resolution.”

    Where is your support for this? What interview with the Albania Alliance are you aware of that we are not? In fact, this so-called statement of fact is little more than you’re own interpretation of events. In fact, the Albania Alliance does support the majority of the points within my father’s proposal. There are points of disagreement, but those points have for the most part been addressed. Reverend LeRoy Haynes has himself in recent days stated on numerous occasions and through numerous organizations that he is thankful a Commissioner was willing to finally address the issues involved in the resolution and that he will fully support it unless Mayor Katz goes even farther. Also, President of the AMA Pastor Bethel, as well as members Bishop Wells and Macceo Pettis have thanked him for being the only person willing to push this through. [Contact each of them if you wish to verify this.] Sounds like a showing of support to me.

    Furthermore, how does the fact that the Albina Alliance did not unequivocally support the resolution from the outset show that my father’s actions were politically motivated? The reality is my father did exactly what he was elected to do. The Alliance came to him demanding change. My father put together the proposal that he felt was most appropriate. The Alliance disagreed on some points. This does not change the fact that my father decided to put forth the resolution because the Alliance came to him and he agreed that he needed to do something.

    Also, you assert that the timing of the proposal is questionable. Well quite frankly everything my father will do over the next four months will be deemed political. In some ways it is. But what should he do? Stay home? Only campaign? Or only put forth those proposals that are uncontroversial?

    My father saw a situation that is serious and is unfortunately not being adequately addressed. He knew he would be criticized by those who already don’t like him. But he also knew that he has a responsibility, as does every commissioner, to address the serious issues facing our community and our police.

    And finally, you have spent multiple articles talking about why father brought forth this resolution. What about actually talking about the substance of the resolution and how it will affect the City of Portland? Too often this race (and, unfortunately, this column) have been about subsidiary issues, its time we actually talk about the serious problems facing this city and how we are going to address them together.

  2. The One True b!X on 18 Jul 2004

    The Oregonian, July 9:

    The Albina Ministerial Alliance -- a coalition of African American pastors who have demanded police reforms in the wake of police shootings of African American suspects -- came before the council two weeks ago with their own proposed resolution. Francesconi said he's had ongoing conversations with the organization.
    "We've been talking to the mayor's staff over the last couple weeks. I held off on filing this," he said. "The problem is, the Albina Ministerial Alliance expects the council to respond. As a member of the council, I sit there and hear the appeals -- it is also my responsibility to respond.

    Portland Tribune, July 13:

    Members of the Albina Ministerial Alliance, which had taken their own resolution to the City Council in June, met with Francesconi on Friday and again Monday to resurrect the core issues they felt the commissioner had sacrificed for his own political gain.
    "This became about the commissioner's candidacy for the mayor's office, when the real issue is the community issue of police shooting unarmed citizens,” the Rev. LeRoy Haynes, chairman of the alliance's Ad-Hoc Coalition of Justice, said before the sides met. "We cannot support his resolution, but we do thank him for his efforts."
    In interviews and memos last week, Francesconi had repeatedly dropped the names of Police Chief Derrick Foxworth and the alliance. Francesconi said it was the alliance that had prompted him to write his own resolution.
    ...
    The issues Haynes considered most important do not appear in Francesconi's version.
    "Those things are not appropriate, I feel, for the council to address in a resolution," Francesconi said. "I am not interested in undercutting Chief Foxworth."
    The day Francesconi made the comments, however, he began negotiations with the alliance to address the issues in a second draft of the resolution in an effort to win the group's support now and in November.

    The Oregonian, July 14:

    The showdown would come despite tepid interest from the Albina Ministerial Alliance, a coalition of African American pastors. They raised the police issue several weeks ago but now say they are waiting for a better proposal from the mayor.
    ...
    Whatever procedural cards commissioners play today, Francesconi's resolution has changed since last week, incorporating officer training and discipline recommendations proposed by the Albina Ministerial Alliance.
    The Rev. LeRoy Haynes, chairman of the alliance's Ad-Hoc Coalition for Justice, said Tuesday that he is happier with the new version but will support it only if Katz fails to top it by proposing specific disciplinary consequences for police officers who misuse deadly force.

    The Oregonian, July 14:

    Francesconi says he's pushing the resolution because a group of black ministers asked him to. But the Albina Ministerial Alliance initially backed away from Francesconi's draft because he changed the language so much. Tuesday, Francesconi caved in to the ministers' demand. But they still are withholding unqualified support.
    "We want to hear what the mayor's got to say," says the Rev. LeRoy Haynes.

    Name-dropped the AMA, despite his resolution not reflecting what they sought. Then said AMA issues weren't appropriate for the resolution. Then started putting in those AMA issue to try to get their support.

    Sorry, but the story told above is about politics.

  3. The One True b!X on 18 Jul 2004

    As for the merits, I intend to get to that. But since the resolution keeps morphing, there's no way to talk about the merits until we all know what in the world they are even going to be.

    Plus, because of what many of us believe to be political aspects to the attempted introduction of the original resolution, I did not want to spend time talking about a resolution that wasn't coming before Council yet, nor talk about the merits when I and others felt there was an entirely legitimate point to be made about the politics of it.

    When the specifics are clear, I'll talk about the merits.

  4. The One True b!X on 18 Jul 2004

    Also, just to make clear my own context, I've contended before that Commissioner Francesconi often appears to act politically. Do a search here for 'switcheroo' and note the bits both about his curiously-timed position swithces on reservoir burial and on the constitutional problems with parks exclusions.

    That history is part of the context I use when looking at his actions on the Council. When there's a track record, it gets factored in to the matter of looking at someone's motivations.

  5. Bryan Francesconi on 18 Jul 2004

    B!X --

    You have thoroughly and admirably provided cites supporting the claim that the Alliance had not previously wholly endorsed the police resolution. I never questioned this. However, you use this to insinuate that my father's intentions were less than pure. This is simply untrue. The Albina Alliance came to him, he did not go to them [Oregonian, July 14]. While members of the Alliance have differed with him over certain provisions, they have also consistently thanked him for pushing the issue [ex: Portland Tribune, July 13. Numerous television interviews with Reverend Haynes and others]. The Alliance now completely supports the resolution unless the Mayor goes even further [Oregonian, July 14]. Finally, and most importantly, next week a resolution will be passed and it will bring important and meaningful changes. This would not have happened if my father had not pushed the issue. He is proud of this, and he has every reason to be.

    It's just too bad that whatever he does, it will be viewed by many as "political," no matter how right he is or how genuine his motives are.

    Maybe you are correct. Maybe he should spend the next four months concentrating on the campaign and enjoying a little well deserved vacation.

  6. The One True b!X on 18 Jul 2004

    The Alliance now completely supports the resolution unless the Mayor goes even further [Oregonian, July 14].

    That's not quite what the paper reports. They say:

    Francesconi says he's pushing the resolution because a group of black ministers asked him to. But the Albina Ministerial Alliance initially backed away from Francesconi's draft because he changed the language so much. Tuesday, Francesconi caved in to the ministers' demand. But they still are withholding unqualified support.
    "We want to hear what the mayor's got to say," says the Rev. LeRoy Haynes.

    That doesn't quite say that they "fully support" it. Now, maybe they do and I personally just have not seen a report that says so. But the paper says nothing about full support.

  7. The One True b!X on 18 Jul 2004

    You have thoroughly and admirably provided cites supporting the claim that the Alliance had not previously wholly endorsed the police resolution. I never questioned this.

    You insinuated it. Here is part of your original comment (beginning with you quoting me):

    "In the case of the Francesconi proposal regarding the Police Bureau, it wasn't merely the attempted introduction of the resolution which raised eyebrows, it was the fact that he tried to wrap himself in the name of an organization which had itself recently proposed Police Bureau reforms to the Council, but which, it turned out, did not in fact support Francesconi's resolution."
    Where is your support for this? What interview with the Albania Alliance are you aware of that we are not? In fact, this so-called statement of fact is little more than you’re own interpretation of events. In fact, the Albania Alliance does support the majority of the points within my father’s proposal. There are points of disagreement, but those points have for the most part been addressed.

    It's clear from the bit from me that you quoted here that I was referring to the initial sequence of events, which clearly in fact (and as I later showed in another comment) demonstrated that the AMA did not support the Commissioner's original resolution, even though he was name-dropping "Albina Ministerial Alliance" to the media.

    But in what you say immediately following the quote from me is an obfuscation of events, blurring the line between the initial sequence of events, to which I was referring, and later circumstances. And, to be honest, returning to my previous comment, this first bit from you -- "Albania Alliance does support the majority of the points within my father’s proposal" -- also isn't the same as "fully supports"

  8. The One True b!X on 18 Jul 2004

    Maybe you are correct. Maybe he should spend the next four months concentrating on the campaign and enjoying a little well deserved vacation.

    Or perhaps it would help if he didn't do things like suddenly changing his mind about the reservoirs once he's running hard for Mayor, or only become concerned that the constitutional issues regarding exclusions laws need to be addressed after it becomes a public -- and Oregonian editorial board -- issue.

    As I said, I happen to believe there is a pattern when one looks at events over time, rather than in isolation.

  9. jim francesconi on 18 Jul 2004

    Although my son does a better job of defending me than I do, I would like to add three thoughts.

    First, I would hope that you would not jump to conclusions based upon soley what you read in the Oregonian or the Tribune. I would hope that you would take the time to talk to the Ministers directly. Although I agreed with most of what they wanted, I could not agree that police officers could automatically be fired even if they violated no personell rules.

    If you do not take the time to talk to the Ministers, at least let your readers know what the minority newspapers are saying, The Skanner and the Observer. It might give your readers a more accurate view of what has occurred and the impact on those most affected, people of color.

    Secondly, I pride myself on actually basing my decisions on the facts. Regarding the reservoirs, I changed my opinion after the Citizen Review panel concluded that terrorism and federal regulations did not require spending 85 million dollars of ratepayer money. You failed to mention that the entire Council also changed their opinion.

    Regrding Parks exclusions, they never checked with me before the matter came to Council. Please ask me these questions before you jump to conclusions and represent them as facts to your readers.

    Finally, it is interesting that on each of these last three issues you appear to agree with me on substance but you enjoy questioning motives. Let's have some debates on substance for a change! Our community will be better off.

  10. jim francesconi on 18 Jul 2004

    Although my son does a better job of defending me than I do, I would like to add three thoughts.

    First, I would hope that you would not jump to conclusions based upon soley what you read in the Oregonian or the Tribune. I would hope that you would take the time to talk to the Ministers directly. Although I agreed with most of what they wanted, I could not agree that police officers could automatically be fired even if they violated no personell rules.

    If you do not take the time to talk to the Ministers, at least let your readers know what the minority newspapers are saying, The Skanner and the Observer. It might give your readers a more accurate view of what has occurred and the impact on those most affected, people of color.

    Secondly, I pride myself on actually basing my decisions on the facts. Regarding the reservoirs, I changed my opinion after the Citizen Review panel concluded that terrorism and federal regulations did not require spending 85 million dollars of ratepayer money. You failed to mention that the entire Council also changed their opinion.

    Regrding Parks exclusions, they never checked with me before the matter came to Council. Please ask me these questions before you jump to conclusions and represent them as facts to your readers.

    Finally, it is interesting that on each of these last three issues you appear to agree with me on substance but you enjoy questioning motives. Let's have some debates on substance for a change! Our community will be better off.

  11. PDXvoter on 19 Jul 2004

    FWIW, I think B!x makes a good point about perception on this issue. To the extent that they have been reported, Mr. Francesconi's recommendations seem sensible and certainly, an elected official should continue to do his job as he runs for another office or for re-election. However, it does matter how the legislation was presented and how Mr. Francesconi has represented his interaction with particular interest groups. These things inform the voter (me) about how a candidate will perform as Mayor. What I conclude (my perception) from this situation is that
    1. Mr. Francesconi was either unaware of or disregarded the rules regarding the proposal of legislation
    2. Mr. Francesconi was unaware of whatever process Mayor Katz had underway with regard to police bureau reform (her initial response to the proposed legislation indicated that much of what was proposed was already underway).

    Now, it may be that the Mayor and the Commissioner don't discuss such issues. I can't judge if that is the case or why that might be if it is the case. But my perception of the whole situation is a Commissioner who was not very skilled in working for what were laudible goals. That may not be a problem on the Commission (Mr. Leonard strikes me as a bit brash but he seems to be making progress) but it does seem a problem for a mayor.

    I'd like to also mention briefly two issues of perception that also matters to me
    1. I am insulted that Mr. Francesconi thought he needed to raise $1 million for a mayoral primary campaign.
    2. In voting against the anti-premeptive war resolution last year, Mr. Francesconi said it was not a local issue. I might not agree with it, but I could respect a no vote based on genuine support of the idea of pre-emptive war. But to claim that a country waging war is not a local issue shows a certain lack of understanding (local lives are affected, state and municipal funds are affected).

    Anyway, I just wanted to edxpress some sympathy with the point that much of this issue is about how Mr. Francesconi presents himself through his approach on these topics. Perception does matter because it's the only way voters can judge how a non-incumbent might behave as Mayor.

  12. The One True b!X on 19 Jul 2004

    Regarding the reservoirs, I changed my opinion after the Citizen Review panel concluded that terrorism and federal regulations did not require spending 85 million dollars of ratepayer money.

    Here's why I made hay out of how the position change went down: The initial position was that it was a matter of safety and cost. But what was inconsistent was that when the position changed happened, it became only a matter of cost. If it was a matter of safety, then perhaps what was left unaddressed was the question, "At what point does the required safety become too expensive? And does that mean that safety is not important enough the pay for?" The question never appeared to be, "Do rules and regulations require us to do this?" -- which is what you claim here was the question. The rationale and matters of concern that got listed changed.

    As for not mentioning the other Council members, that wasn't the issue at hand for me. The issue at hand was that the other candidates running for local office opposed the burial all along, and then your change happened during the campaign. And, as I contend, the issues of import that you list do not apppear to be consistent between pre-change and post-change positions.

    Regrding Parks exclusions, they never checked with me before the matter came to Council.

    Who never checked with you? Here, I simply invite readers to go back and read the timeline of events surrounding the parks exclusions law and changes to it. Start here and also work your way back through the links in that item.

  13. The One True b!X on 19 Jul 2004

    As to other related matters, and to followup on something the Commissioner posted above, readers should read the front page of The Skanner which at the moment has a story on all of this. I note, however, that this article also does not say the AMA "fully supports" Francesconi's resolution, as was repeatedly claimed in the comments here.

    One other thing I need to point out. One of the particular strengths of this medium is that I get to make my own assessment of facts and events. But in doing so, I strive to link to as much of the original material as possible, so that readers can click through and make up their own minds. Were I not providing links to as many reports as I happen to know about, I would worry more about people's concerns about my own assessments and determinations.

    That said, the diversity of links (or lack thereof) is actually a fair question to raise. Part of it is inertia on my part, and part of it is often not being able to get ahold of various papers (including the community/neighborhood ones, which you can't get in one central place as far as I know) and/or find current content on the websites of those who have websites.

  14. The One True b!X on 19 Jul 2004

    Here's the only Portland Observer item I could find online at the moment.

  15. Steve on 19 Jul 2004

    "As for not mentioning the other Council members, that wasn't the issue at hand for me. The issue at hand was that the other candidates running for local office opposed the burial all along, and then your change happened during the campaign."

    So the fact that five elected officials of the City all thought one course of action was appropriate and all likewise changed their mind after getting additional information does not matter to you at all? Not at all relevant? Not at all worth informing your readers of? Well that sounds like fair and balanced journalism to me. You should write for Fox News.

  16. The One True b!X on 19 Jul 2004

    As per my previous comments, I'd be willing to bet that information about the whens, hows, and whys of other Council people changing their positions was readily available on any number of links I provided here while covering the reservoir issue. To reiterate: This site is my assessments from my perspective of the facts as I've encountered them.

    My biases are no secret, unlike those in the mainstream press. And, in fact, if you care to notice, I even put a question about my own motivations in the "inifinitely-recursive skepticsm" bit in this very post. My job is not to mention every conceivable piece of information about a given subject. My job is to report how I see things, and in the process hopefully allow links to enough information for readers to go read more and think for themselves and decide on their own what they believe is true.

    Now, FOX News, I'll wager they don't link to original material or other people's reporting so that their viewers/readers can read and think for themselves.

  17. The One True b!X on 19 Jul 2004

    By the way, I'm still confused, speaking of misrepresentation, why you continue to be "Steve" when that email address was one of those used by Jon Dunn when he was writing a local weblog.

  18. jesse. on 19 Jul 2004

    ...part of it is often not being able to get ahold of various papers (including the community/neighborhood ones, which you can't get in one central place as far as I know)...

    Metro (600 NE Grand) carries a bunch of local newspapers in the hallway. I can't say ALL of them, but many of the community ones. (Observer, Skanner, El Hispanic News, etc.)

  19. The One True b!X on 20 Jul 2004

    Actually, those I can find if I keep it in mind. I was thinking more (to increase the spread of diversity involved) of the community papers like Southeast Examiner (which obviously I can get because it's where I live) and all the rest. I still can't even find a convenient list of all of them, let alone find them all in one physical location.

  20. Kris Hasson-Jones on 20 Jul 2004

    Wow, my opinion of Francesconi just sunk through the floor. If his own son thinks it's okay to white knight for him online, that's strong evidence that I don't like. It's one thing for J. Random Voter to support a candidate; it's a whole 'nother thing for a relative or a member of his campaing staff to do it (not implying the son is a member of the campaign staff, just demonstrating the breadth of my definition).

  21. doretta on 20 Jul 2004

    Strong evidence of what, exactly?

    I can't think of any reason Bryan Francesconi shouldn't defend his dad's actions if he feels like it.

    It would probably be politically safer for Jim if he stifled his kid and eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding. How can you fault him for not doing that?

  22. Jaimee Mackinnon on 21 Jul 2004

    Kris Hassons' comment makes aboslutely no sense to me what so ever. Why exactly is not ok for the son of a candidate to support his dad? I would sure hope he would, I think it would make a much greater impression on me if he didn't.

  23. tomwsmf on 21 Jul 2004

    The sins of the father are not the sins of the son, but man what a drag its got to be to have to watch your old man flounder in the polls and make bone head moves like playing hte "Overtly Political Use Of My Office" card at a critical juncture of a campagain.

    So whats a kid to do? If your in the school yard and some kid says to you "Hey I hear your dad listens to Kajagoogoo" of course your going to jump and and quiver out "He does not, he listens to Incubus and Slipknot and besides this one time he got to meet Gibby". Deep in your heart you realize that if these kids ever come to your house and find good old dad swinging to Less Brown and his band of Renown your sunk like the Bismark, but you gota do something...right?

    Now Im not saying that Jimbo listens to Less Brown or that he has not met Gibby, its Portland and things like that happen here. But that his kith and kin would jump into the fray to defend the papasan, I can understand that.

    Jim, you got a good kid. Having a strong family around when Tom wins the election is going to be a good thing.

    -tomwsmf
    (no spell checkers were harmed in the making of this post)

Trackbacks (3)

  1. Blog news on 16 Aug 2004

    People who don't read blogs don't know what they're missing. In browsing around the Oregon blogosphere upon my return from hiatus, I noticed many interesting developments that took place while I was gone. Among these are: 1. Portland City Commissioner...

  2. Blog news on 16 Aug 2004

    People who don't read blogs don't know what they're missing. In browsing around the Oregon blogosphere upon my return from hiatus, I noticed many interesting developments that took place while I was gone. Among these are: 1. Portland City Commissioner...

  3. Blog news on 17 Aug 2004

    People who don't read blogs don't know what they're missing. In browsing around the Oregon blogosphere upon my return from hiatus, I noticed many interesting developments that took place while I was gone. Among these are: 1. Portland City Commissioner...