August 11, 2004

(Updated) Francesconi Radio Ad Slams Potter's Tenure As Chief

New Website Claims To Reveal 'Real' Record

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

According to the Jim Francesconi weekly update dated today, his campaign has begun airing a radio ad critical of opponent Tom Potter and his tenure as Chief of Police.

In a letter to Potter sent the day before the ad was scheduled to begin airing, Francesconi asked: "You aren't ready to be mayor unless you're ready to talk about your record…Why did you overturn the decision of one of your own commanders and exonerate an officer accused of excessive force - the same officer who went on to shoot at a fleeing suspect 23 times?"

In the radio spot (mp3, 2.4MB), backed by a low, ominous musical tone, a woman's voice describes the shooting incident, repeatedly using the phrase "23 shots," and pegs Potter for rising crime, poor training, and protecting bad cops when he was Chief. The ad goes on to issue a warning to voters: "Before you take a chance, take a look."

For what it's worth, the transcript of the ad as posted to the Francesconi website includes the familiar sort of closing line: "I'm Jim Francesconi and I approved this message." But in the apparently-revised version we received from the campaign this morning, this has been changed to: "I'm Jim Francesconi and I authorized this message."

Both Francesconi's letter and his campaign's ad, point to a companion website purporting to describe the real Tom Potter, which links to news reports related to the officer in question. (It also presents what it calls a "Potter Promise-O-Meter," offering the Francesconi camp's estimates of what Potter's policy positions will cost the City.)

While we don't know the specifics of the case in any way, we found Oregonian reports from 1995 which report that the officer in question was reinstated to the Bureau by an arbitrator who asserted that the officer was justified in his use of deadly force in that incident. (Parenthetically, we also found an article about the shooting in which then-Sergeant Derrick Foxworth reportedly said that members of the Bureau itself were concerned about the number of shots fired.)

As of midday today, Potter himself had not yet heard the ad, although he said he's been listening for it on the radio. "I haven't heard it yet, so it's difficult to comment on the specifics of it," he said. "But I don't think this is the way to run a campaign."

Potter said that he had talked to Francesconi at the end of the primary campaign and asked that they both run a clean campaign. "He did not respond to that in any way," Potter said. "He did not answer me, and I guess this is the reason why."

"I'm very disappointed in him," Potter added. "I think Portland deserves better than this."

As for Francesconi, he doesn't consider this negative campaigning.

"You say it’s negative campaigning to discuss your actions as police chief and your inaction in the eleven years since," Francesconi said in his previously-mentioned letter to Potter. "My record is an open book. You seem to want to keep your record a blank slate."

Readers may recall that this is not the first time secondary websites have appeared in this year's Mayoral campaign. During the primary campaign earlier this year, a group of Potter backers (at least one of whom had previously done work for the Potter campaign itself) launched the GoPotterGo! PAC, an effort to raise money to support Potter outside of the context of his self-imposed limit on campaign contributions.

That group released a video clip of Francesconi it claimed showed his true attitudes towards homelessness. At the time, the Francesconi team unsuccessfully attempted to insinuate a direct link (read: coordination) between the PAC and the Potter campaign itself.

August 11, 2004

Update

Since we are on the subject of what is and is not negative campaigning, and who is and is not responsible for various campaign-related efforts, readers should be made aware that they need to read the comments to this item. We don't want to give it away here, but it involves connections (direct or indirect, it's difficult to know for sure which it is) between Francesconi and one of our reader/commenters.

Posted at 12:07 PM | PermalinkComments (26) | TrackBacks (6)
More In 2004 Mayoral Campaign, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »

Comments (26)

  1. Alan Bonney on 11 Aug 2004

    It is Painfully Obvious to me that Commissioner Francesconi Has gone into the gutter with his smear campaign but then his disregard for facts has been consistent in fact the type of campaign he has run convinces me that he needs evicted from city hall and not promoted to top dog. From what I have seen he takes credit for others ideas
    blames others for his mistakes and reminds me of a big city boss. It's time we step up to the plate and say Jim Francesconi You're Fired.

  2. Simp on 11 Aug 2004

    I've heard the ad several times since yesterday afternoon. It shows more about Francesconi's politics than it does about Potter's.

    This single stroke of brilliance will shift me from a passive Potter supporter to an much more active one.

    Thanks for bringing home the garbage Jim.

  3. notyouraverageblogger on 11 Aug 2004

    Alan,

    Tell me something, what do you actually know about Tom Potter? Do you know about his years as the chief of police? Do you know what he has been doing for the last eight years? Do you know his posititions on the issues? In short, what exactly qualifies Tom Potter to be mayor?

    I personally have no idea. But from what I can tell, he does seem to be predominately running on his 20 months of experience as police chief 8 years ago.

    Fine, but what did he do? Again, as Francesconi said, even these twenty months seem to be a blank slate. I know you will disagree with me, but I don't blame Francesconi for getting frustrated with candidate Potter as everything to everyone.

    We the voters have a right to know about Tom's record as police chief. That means both the good and the bad.

  4. back to work on 11 Aug 2004

    Simp,

    Have you seen the aforementioned GoPotterGo website? Before you accuse one candidate of garbage politics, you owe yourself a look at the other side. If you watch that video up on the GoPotterGo website and you truly believe that Francesconi's comments were not taken out of context, then you should be disgusted with Francesconi. However, far more likely, you will realize Potter has been in the garbage for along time and Francesconi is new to the dump.

    As for those who claim that Potter's campaign is not related the GoPotterGO PAC, please explain away the fact that Potter's campaign manager left the campaign to immediately thereafter start the so-called independent PAC.

  5. Spine on 11 Aug 2004

    Anyone else think comments 3 and 4 were written by the same person? Anyone else curious as to what affiliations would impel a commenter to post anonymously?

  6. The One True b!X on 11 Aug 2004

    Fact-check please. It wasn't Potter's campaign manager who went on to create the PAC. It was someone they had paid to do some work for the campaign, including software and online components. See the earlier article of mine that I linked at the end of this item.

    The fact that a staffer or outside contractor (whichever you want to consider the person in question, who was not the campaign manager) decides to go off and do something more direct doesn't inherently mean he was still working for the Potter campaign when he did so.

  7. The One True b!X on 11 Aug 2004

    Anyone else think comments 3 and 4 were written by the same person?

    It's not proof-positive, but for the sake of conversation: Those comments, posted within 10 minutes of each other, were posted from the same IP address. At the very least, the two commenters share an Internet Service Provider. I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves if it goes any further than that.

  8. The One True b!X on 11 Aug 2004

    In fact, I can go on better. And pay attention, because this is choice.

    The IP address in question belongs to the network of Garvey Schubert Barer, a law firm with offices in Portland (amongst other locations).

    He's no longer listed among their staff, but a Google cache reveals that one Bryan Francesconi at some point was a Summer Associate at that firm.

    So, either he's still there and the mystery poster is him, or it's someone he knows there who shares his leanings.

    Not so incidentally, anyone remember the commenter who sometimes showed up posting as "Steve" and who at one point was falsely using the email address of another reader here?

    Those "Steve" comments were posted from the exact same IP address out of GSB Law.

  9. The One True b!X on 11 Aug 2004

    Also for whatever it's worth, this semi-mystery commenter weighed in on the thread in which both Jim and Bryan Francesconi posted comments.

  10. Noel on 11 Aug 2004

    Geez. what a maroon. If the poor guy can't even figure out how to hide or change his IP address, I guess we know his position on internet anonymity.

    (To which, he might argue, is at least a position on something, and is therefore more than Potter's stance on anything. And to which I would reply: yoo been publicly busted, Mr. Bryan Francesconi of Garvey Schubert Barer!)

  11. The One True b!X on 11 Aug 2004

    Well, as I said, there's no way with the current information to for-certain peg this on Bryan Francesconi. It's simply known that he did at some point, and may or may not currently, work at the law firm whose computer is being used to post these pseudonymous comments.

  12. myrln on 11 Aug 2004

    Hmmm...is this something like We Know What You Did Last Summer?
    Good going, Bix.

  13. pdxkona on 11 Aug 2004

    Well that little tidbit has solidified my position; I would rather vote for someone who gets some thing wrong every now and then but has honest intentions than someone who never messes up yet gets there by distasteful means.

  14. Max on 11 Aug 2004

    Great job b!x. Nice to see the Francesconi campaign being its own worst enemy once again.

    Think they'll get the picture before November?

  15. no one in particular on 11 Aug 2004

    Bryan Francesconi still has voicemail there if you call the number listed on the staff roster: (503) 228-3939 x3226.

    Also, note that google's cache of the staff list is from 7/31, less than two weeks ago. I can't imagine why they would've taken him out of the staff list if he's still working there, but nonetheless that seems to be the most probable conclusion.

    Someone should call during the day and see what the receptionist says.

    I bet little Bryan is going to get an earful from his dad about this.

  16. Bob R. on 12 Aug 2004

    Heard the anti-Potter radio ad this morning on 620 KPOJ (Air America / Progressive radio).

    I hope that the Potter campaign is able to track the venues in which this ad appears and respond appropriately. KPOJ has a huge listenership now.

    - Bob

  17. Anonymous Coward on 12 Aug 2004

    For what it's worth, the receptionist at GSB didn't blink when I asked for Bryan Francesconi - and then transferred me... "This is Bryan."

    Busted.

  18. PFO Blogger on 12 Aug 2004

    This is better than reality TV - I'm a little overwhelmed. Yikes.

  19. Jeff on 12 Aug 2004

    Dammit b!X, hasn't SOMEONE given you a fat pot of cash yet? Incredible....

  20. Dave Lister on 13 Aug 2004

    b!X,
    Everyone who reads my comments knows that I post my actual name and my actual opinions. I don't have a big opinion on this issue, one way or another, but I'm just wondering why you decided in this case to "out" an anonymous poster?

  21. The One True b!X on 13 Aug 2004

    A fair question, although it has what I consider to be a simple answer. Much like I had a deep issue with the front-group sponsored by the local utilities companies and their PR firm which made it appear as if there were a grassroots citizens group opposed to a local PUD, I believe that it is relevant to the Mayoral discussion being had via this site's comments that it's very possible not only that three different commenters are in fact the same person, but that those three-is-one may very well be the son of one of the candidates.

    I think that transparency is important, and I think it's important for people to know when an appparent group of readers, all coming in to criticize one candidates and pump up another, in fact is likely a single person with a direct connection to one of those candidates.

  22. Jim on 13 Aug 2004

    I also think there is another rationale for this matter to have received attention. One of the principles of weblog ethics – which I have always construed to be morally binding on all blog participants whether the publisher or a poster – is "Disclose any conflict of interest.” (The full statement of these principles are available from the “OUR PRINCIPLES” link in the upper left-hand corner of this page.) My opinion simply stated is that if someone with a conflict of interest is trying to scam me and us, and influence the open flow of ideas in the doing, I don’t necessarily wish to stop that, but I do want and need to know about it. Thanks, b!x.

  23. Mikey on 13 Aug 2004

    I was wondering about the revealing too, and I think had the person left a name like, "ChoosingToStayAnon" rather than lying and trying to trick people into believing that Francis has supporters, then b!X would have respected his privacy.

  24. Dave Lister on 14 Aug 2004

    Thanks for the answer on the revealing of the poster. In a perfect world, we would all say who we are and be up front in our convictions. As far as the mayor's race is concerned, I think Potter has a big edge right now, regardless of his credentials. It seems like the Francesconi campaign, after being primarily funded by business interests, has felt a need to make a big left turn. That leaves the business guys wondering where he will really go on economic issues and leaves the candidate looking pretty transparent to the liberals.

  25. AB on 16 Aug 2004

    I must respond to not notyouraverageblogger and say yes I am familiar with Tom Potters Tenure as Police Chief was actually from 1990-1993 a long 20 months isn't it?. I do remember his accomplishments and i do recognize that no one is perfect.I also know Tom Potter quite well he lives in my neighborhood I know him to have integrity and class.
    The Reason we have great parks is because of Charles Jordan and not Jim Francesconi. even if Francesconi were not a two faced waffler I still could not in good conscinece support him in fact I think former candidates James Posey and Phil Busse are also much better men than Francesconi Nuff said.

  26. Lobodelsol on 20 Oct 2004

    Well, I ' m a gonna comment.
    I guess i see running for political office to be a dangerous enterprise all around. Damned if you do something. Damned if you don't. I think Jim Francesconi has done a lot of amazing things while he has been in office. Also though I get the sense from him at this point that he is - too polished. And his three points where he addresses public safety are decidedly weak. This is part of the reason why I am voting for Tom Potter. I think it takes guts to stand up and say hey you know what - there's a problem. Here's what I want to do to fix it. I think he is right on the money with encouraging better neighborhood policing. The police issue has long been festering in Portland. For Francesconi not to address it in more detail is a major oversight. I would not want that for someone who is stepping into office. Can we say Vera Katz's biggest mistake all over again? Not for another term! I have reservations about Tom Potter's complete effectiveness in office but I like the way he at least is aware of the issues not just with regards to public safety but also to the environment, arts and culture, etc. while still wanting to encourage better business collaborations and opportunities. The fact that Francesconi's campaign took the tact of harping on Tom Potter's choice to "retire" and delve into matters that were meaningful and enjoyable to him at the same tiime calling that lack of public service sounds mean spirited and makes Francesconi actually sound tired - like he needs to go on vacation a little himself to get the joy back in life. So Kudos to Francesconi for all your years of service and thank you very much. But just because you have served well in one position doesn't necessarily mean that you automatically qualify as the best candidate in another. It's still a hard call though. One candidate has vision and the other has dedicated service. I am going with the vision since if that is a clear thing then the people able to work with that will step in with dedicated service.

Trackbacks (6)

  1. The Ugly Side of Jim Francesconi on 11 Aug 2004

    The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE reports today that mayoral candidate Jim Francesconi has launched new negative ads against rival Tom Potter. Francesconi’s ads question Potter’s effectiveness during his tenure as Portland police chief by dist...

  2. The Ugly Side of Jim Francesconi on 11 Aug 2004

    The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE reports today that mayoral candidate Jim Francesconi has launched new negative ads against rival Tom Potter. Francesconi’s ads question Potter’s effectiveness during his tenure as Portland police chief by dist...

  3. The Ugly Side of Jim Francesconi on 11 Aug 2004

    The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE reports today that mayoral candidate Jim Francesconi has launched new negative ads against rival Tom Potter. Francesconi’s ads question Potter’s effectiveness during his tenure as Portland police chief by dist...

  4. Busted! on 13 Aug 2004

    This is a day old, but worth checking out. Over at the Communique, B!x posted some thoughts on a new radio hit piece the Francesconi camp is running against Tom Potter. It's a great blog as is (B!x has Potter's

  5. Shoot first, answer questions later on 20 Aug 2004

    I was fascinated when b!X posted this report on Commissioner Francesconi's advertisement, in which Commissioner Francesconi alleged that Tom Potter, when chief, reinstated a police officer who had shot a suspect 23 times. Then b!X followed his first re...

  6. Shoot first, answer questions later on 22 Aug 2004

    I was fascinated when b!X posted this report on Commissioner Francesconi's advertisement, in which Commissioner Francesconi alleged that Tom Potter, when chief, reinstated a police officer who had shot a suspect 23 times. Then b!X followed his first re...