Love(less) letters

I've added copies of DA Michael Schrunk's letter to County Chair Diane Linn, and her reply, to the Lie Factory archives.

• DA Schrunk's letter


• Chair Linn's letter

Just so they don't fall down the memory hole.

Update:

Fixed the incorrect link to my own site. Damn.

Paranoia, the destroyah

On Wednesday, Willamette Week reported that a former employee of Multnomah County, Laura Bridges, was claiming that County Chair Diane Linn had asked her and the then Chief of Staff, Kathy Turner, to alter Linn's Outlook calendar before printing it out for a public records request in September 2003.

Kathy Turner confirmed the incident. Diane Linn claimed that this was simply dirty politics - she's up for re-election and the ballots go out this week for Election Day in May.

The local daily rag, The bOregonian, followed up on the story (link only good for 14 days; saved PDF of page one here and PDF of page two here) and Chair Linn pulled out all the stops. To my ears, it sounds like paranoia:

Linn said Bridges, who once served on the executive board of Oregon Naral, tried unsuccessfully to dash an endorsement of Linn. Turner, who lost her job in Linn's office when the chairwoman shifted her title and duties to then-Chief Operating Officer John Ball, is listed as a Wheeler supporter on his campaign Web site. Turner also is close friends with Wheeler's campaign strategist, Liz Kaufman, Linn said. And, finally, the name of John Bradley appears among Wheeler endorsements, Linn said.

"Kathy Turner has lawn signs, John Bradley, the deputy D.A. is also on Wheeler's Web site . . . and I'm calling foul," Linn said.

A John Bradley is listed among Wheeler's contributors. But it's the president of R&H Construction -- not the deputy district attorney of the same name -- who donated $250 to Wheeler's campaign.

(My emphasis added) ...well, either paranoia or jumping to conclusions. Not the sign of a strong leader.

The District Attorney, Michael Schrunk, is calling for an investigation, but because his budget is under Chair Linn's jurisdiction, he's asking that the state Department of Justice look into it. He sounds peeved that anyone would suggest that his DAs are politically motivated (from an editorial posted tonight on the WW website):

In a letter Thursday to Linn that said he is asking the state attorney general's office to investigate the Bridges charge, Schrunk flatly denied that allegation.

"The clear implication is that someone in my office is using his position in the District Attorney's office to influence a political race," Schrunk wrote. "This is something my office would never do and I would not tolerate it."

As Schrunk points out in the letter, WW spoke to Bradley in hypothetical terms and did not disclose Linn's identity.

(My emphasis added).

There's some concern over the fact that the Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers, is a proponent of Chair Linn's re-election. I don't know if Oregon has a "special prosecutor" law... Might be needed, if our elected officials even care about the "appearance of impropriety" anymore.

Um, oops. Diane Linn's enemies are everywhere... in her mind.

Ms. Bridges says she was motivated by the poor treatment Chair Linn gave to Dave Boyer, the 25-year veteran of the county who retired early rather than falsify budget numbers at Linn's request.

Chair Linn complained to the Willy Week that Bridges didn't step forward sooner. But listen to Laura Bridges' statement:

"There's almost an unwritten rule. You don't talk about your elected unless you're saying something good, even after you leave. You keep it to yourself and you move on.

"I'm scared because I feel like I'm breaking that pact," Bridges says. "But people need to speak out when elected officials act improperly."

To me, that sounds like a victim of intimidation finally realizing her courage, reaching her last straw and realizing the power that they've been ignoring.

Courage just like Lea Lakeside-Scott had and has had for years. (Of course, you read about it from me, first).

They'll investigate this petty political scandal, but Jann Brown is still employed at the county, having been promoted twice since attempting to silence a whistle-blower. A whistle-blower whose accusations have never been investigated!

And that doesn't even address the poor woman intimdated by Dr. Peter Davidson, or the pending Federal case brought by Candace Clarke who claims she was intimidated into ignoring budget irregularities.

But I've been saying this amongst my friends for years: suppression and intimidation is the way county management works! I've seen it with my own eyes and I've done what I can to stand up to it. This goes hand-in-hand with Diane Linn's mis-management skills. She's known as someone who doesn't compromise - it's her way or the highway. And that percolates down through every level of management. She doesn't negotiate and she brooks no dissent. It's obvious (in my eyes) in how she handles everything, but, publicly, especially the way she badly bungled the same-sex marriage issue - make a unilateral decision, keep other commissioners out of the process, don't consider building a consensus with those who might disagree, silence or ignore her opponents.

But it looks as though the dam is breaking. One can only hope that the rest of the county sees it too.

Mr. Snowmiser?

As Josh Marshall says, the jokes just write themselves these days.

Fox "News" headline:

"Mixed Emotions on Tony Snow's New White House Role"

It's almost as though they want us to laugh at them. Do they think we don't notice?

I forgot TT

I completely spaced out on Transcript Tuesday yesterday. I will try to research and put something up today. And I'll fight hard against the urge to post-date it for yesterday because Blogger makes it so easy to do that.

But that would be wrong.

Fox in the henhouse

I can't make this stuff up.

Let me get this straight: President Bush is (among other things) calling for an investigation into possible price gouging by the oil industry?

I have snark overload. There's too many possible responses to this, my mind is locked up and simply can't process.

And no one in the press asked him about his own ties to the oil industry? Let alone the rest of his administration? Condi Rice has an oil tanker named after her, for Darwin's sake.

I'm sure his major campaign contributors are a' shakin' in their big ol' cowboy boots.

Begging for votes

I did something this weekend I don't normally do.

I picked up the latest issue of Just Out, an LGBT-oriented local newspaper. It's not a habitual read for me. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It was the cover story. Or, rather, the cover photo, a huge picture of one Ms. Diane Linn (is anyone else surprised that Ms. Linn has a Wikipedia article about her?), and the headline:

For Better, For Worse: The Price of Loyalty

Inside, on the first facing page of the paper, is an article by Marty Davis, representing the editorial board of the paper I believe.

Davis makes the case that for one reason and one reason only, folks in the LGBT community (and those sympathetic to the community) must vote for Ms. Linn's reelection. In my read, it's not simply a demand for that vote: it's a plaintive beg for it. From the article:

"What is imperative in May is that the gay, lesbian, bi and trans voters of Multnomah County step up and return Diane Linn to office.

"To overcome recent setbacks and continue toward achieving goals, we are in need of maintaining strong relationships with elected officials on all levels. City, county, state and federal. We will ask legislators to step up, make crucial votes and take a risk. Faced with the possibility of desertion by those whom you’ve supported, why would a politician step up, possibly risking his or her own career, as did Linn? We have grown well into the position of demanding support of others. Now we have the opportunity to show that we value loyalty and understand the need to reciprocate. It’s a two-way street.

And Davis sets aside the idea that the LGBT community is a single-issue bloc and dismisses any concerns that Ms. Linn might not actually be an effective elected official, whitewashing her myriad mistakes:

"To those Linn detractors who might be dismayed by the appearance of a candidate in distress: Don’t overreact. This is not the time to turn our backs on incumbents when they appear on the ballot with worn and torn records. In all attempts to affect change, there will be successes and there will be failures. Any political novice can run against an incumbent and point to a flawed record. The only way to avoid failures is to never do anything at all. A record without failures is a record of no effort."

I have to disagree. I believe that human rights are imperative, and am dismayed that they would even be in jeopardy in my lifetime. But we live in perilous political times, it seems. And I think that rather than give Chair Linn a pass on her ham-handed and unilateral way of presenting the issue of same-sex marriage, I think she, and the county counsel that advised her (I'm looking at you, Agnes Sowle) needs to be held accountable for the failure of the county attempt to ram it through without any public input - for that matter, with very little input from all of the other county commissioners.

That scare was enough to mobilize the radically-conservative community against the idea, and, I believe, directly led to the passing of Measure 36, banning same-sex marriages in the entire state, in the next election. Rather than supporting lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals, Diane Linn undermined them through political ineptitude.

Davis makes much hay of Linns opponent's, businessman Ted Wheeler, lack of active support for LGBT civil rights. Not knowing much about his history, I can't speak to that, although I will say that I support Mr. Wheeler for other positions he's taken (about which I will write more later).

But is Diane Linn's support the kind of support Davis wishes to see more of? I honestly find that hard to believe. And it appears from the scared tone of Davis' commentary that perhaps it's the author that needs the most convincing.

Transcript Tuesday

This week for Transcript Tuesday, we turn to the cross-examination of Joanne Fuller, Director for the Department of Community Justice (DCJ), Multnomah County, again, as last week, from the trial of Lea Lakeside-Scott vs. Multnomah County and Jann Brown. This testimony is from 17 November 2004. The Honorable Michael W. Mosman presiding.

Ms. Fuller is being cross-examined by George Fisher, Ms. Lakeside-Scott's counsel, about the complaint that Ms. Lakeside-Scott filed with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), some six weeks prior to be terminated. The plaintiff's contention was that the county and DCJ terminated her rather than address the issues covered in the BOLI complaint (among others).

Since Ms. Fuller was the head of the department, Mr. Fisher wanted to know what she, personally, did to investigate these accusations.

Let's see what she did, shall we?

Q. Your testimony concerning Ms. Hogue's role in this matter as it relates to her authorization, the alleged authorization by Ms. Hogue, depending on who you believe, as it relates to your statement in which you say -- I wrote it down here -- that additional access would not have been as broad, even if Ms. Hogue had permitted some access. Do you remember that part of your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. But -- and you also stated that as a result of that, you concluded that the -- again, this is a quotation I wrote, the shear magnitude of the amount of material that Mrs. Scott had access to further led you to conclude that Ms. Hogue had not given her the authorization that Mrs. Scott has testified to.

A. Yes.

Q. But the fact is that that entire argument is in fact premised on your conclusion that she did not give -- Ms. Hogue did not give Mrs. Scott that authorization, correct?

A. That thinking led me to believe that it was unlikely that Ms. Hogue had -- would have authorized that kind of access.

Q. When you reviewed the BOLI complaint and noted and admit here today that there was some concerns for you in the allegations of Mrs. Scott, why should it surprise you that somebody making the allegations that Mrs. Scott was making would want to document it as voluminously and as detailed as she possibly could?

A. Frankly, I believe that Mrs. Scott could have made BOLI complaints, but I was shocked that she would go into other people's e-mail and calendars and copy into her own file all kinds of information from other people.

Q. Well, let's give you that. Okay. Let's say just for discussion's sake here today that her access is exactly as you would characterize it, that it was wholly unauthorized and unacceptable and of great magnitude. Would your position still be the same if in fact those documents proved Mrs. Scott's claims?

A. Yes. I believe that it was totally inappropriate for her to use her access to get information, to collect information on other people on County time.

Q. Even if the allegations are sexual preference in hiring, improper contracting, denial of ergonomics, all those things, those allegations that the BOLI complaint contained could be proven or believed to be proven by Mrs. Scott by doing what she did, you still would have terminated her?

A. They were not proven.

Q. That was not my question. My question was, had they been able to prove it -- and as I understand it, you did not pursue the BOLI complaint to whether or not they were in fact true or not. You didn't look at any of the information through the prism of her allegations in the BOLI, did you?

A. County counsel pursued her BOLI complaint.

Q. So your answer is no, you did not?

A. I did not.

Now, does that make any sense at all? Taking Ms. Fuller at her word, that she had never heard such accusations before... wouldn't she want to know if such actions were taking place by her subordinates?

Hmmm... why wouldn't she want to know?

The above section is taken from the Day 2 transcript (PDF). The full transcripts are available in PDF or text format.

Satire or parody?

I can't tell... is this letter, currently appearing on the Letters to the Editor page of today's bOregonian, satire, or parody?

Loan company cuts rates

The news industry never ceases to amaze me, as well as our local politicians. The payday loan companies have been demonized and besmirched by the media and politicized by Oregon politicians running for re-election. They don't have time to say anything about the payday loan company that is actually doing something to make the loan companies more equitable for the consumers. My company, PayCheck Advance Northwest, has cut the interest rates nearly in half. That is, we have reduced the annual percentage rate from 521 percent to 312 percent, which is equivalent to $12 per $100 loaned.

Do you think the media or any of the politicians would alert their constituents to the windfall? Not a chance. A normal person would see this as news. I guess if it's not down and dirty, or if it can't get votes, then it's not news. Who is looking out for the people?

RICHARD M. DUVALL, Northwest Portland

You don't suppose that Mr. Duvall is actually sincere, do you?

I'll add a link to the cache or a saved copy of the page for reference after it disappears behind the bOregonian's 14-day firewall.

Understanding

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Nibbled to death by ducks

Apple is trying to have a bigger stake in Portland; they want to have one of their flagship stores in Northwest Portland. It's a good fit in my opinion; Portland is home to one of the longest-running Macintosh Users Groups, and has always been, despite the hulking presence of Intel on the western horizon (oh, wait, Apple likes Intel now; I almost forgot) pretty much a Mac town, in much the same way it's a book town.

And trendy NW Portland is also a perfect fit - if your stereotype of Portland is liberal, sandal-wearing, latte-sipping beautiful people. Which is incredibly accurate, by the way.

Side note: when did everyone start calling NW Portland the "Alphabet District"? I've lived here most of my life, was born in Portland, and it's always just been NW to me? Yes, yes, I know, the streets from Ankeny to Vaughn are all in alphabetical order, one per letter, but we've still always called it NW Portland. Or, occassionally we make with the snark and call the main drag through there "Trendy-Third" - I don't know when this new nickname started. Probably the developers or somethin'.

Wait, my story - or is it a rant? I can't decide. Oh, right... so Apple has a huge Apple logo they want to include on their store, just like they brand everything with their logo. Only now it appears that the logo might conflict with Portland sign and building code (link is only good for 14 days after the date of this post - I'll add a saved version later).

It's not that Apple is tearing down some ancient building to build their sleek modern store (can you tell whose side I'm on here?) since the building they're moving into is barely old enough to vote (it dates back to the halcyon days of 1982 - ironically, the year that Time proclaimed the computer their Man of the Year), but the sticking point appears to be (from the bOregonian article):

...city design guidelines adopted in 2000 say new buildings "will seek to incorporate design themes characteristic of similar buildings" in the historic district.

Don't they realize that Apple has way more individuality and style than that? You can't force Apple to conform to other people's themes. That's not Apple, baby. They lead the pack, not follow it.

Again, from the article (and why is this statement unattributed? I hate lazy journalism):

The size of the Apple sign undoubtedly will draw attention of the landmarks commission and the neighborhood, which has a history of taking land-use and design issues themselves far too seriously.

Oops, I accidentally corrected that; don't thank me, I'm just doin' my job.

So which city commissioner do I need to bombard with emails and phone calls on this?

It's all backwards

Via Jack, I found Mayor Potter's new blog.

And I got all confused for a second.

First, what's with a city union - not just any local, but an AFSCME local, mind you - actually asking the Mayor to take action against "Foxy" Foxworth? I was pretty sure that all AFSCME unions in Portland, if not the state, had the same loophole in their contract that allowed management to do whatever the hell they wanted? Why would Mr. Hester go out on a limb and make a strong statement like that?

And why can't my union do stuff like that?

Sure, Mayor Potter turned them down. He even got all weepy over the betrayal of trust for someone to do something bold like go to the media. That must have hurt someone's feelings.

...but, then, someone must have pointed out that this was, in fact, a good idea, because a couple of hours later, Mayor Potter puts "Foxy" on administrative leave - leading to my second moment of cognitive dissonance.

See, I work for Multnomah County. I thought that administrative leave is only used on line staff.

Do you think Mayor Potter will give in on the huge conflict of interest of having him investigate his protegé, too? Or is that too much to hope for?

Well, it's a crazy, mixed-up world we live in. Stranger things have happened.

Transcript Tuesday

I'm going to start a series that I'm going to call "Transcript Tuesdays". Each Tuesday I will post a small bit of court transcript, or maybe several small sections. My overall goal is, well, multiple reasons, really, but mainly to show just how conflicting or cagey some political creatures are when the threat of perjury is upon them.

For the first installment, and for many of the upcoming ones, I'm going to use sections from the trial of Lea Lakeside-Scott vs. Multnomah County and Jann Brown, a court case for which I was, in fact, a witness for the plaintiff. I have a copy of the transcripts from all three days of trial (archived here as PDFs or here as text).

The court met from Tuesday 16 November to Thursday 18 November 2004. Presiding judge was the Honorable Michael W. Mosman.

The section I want to highlight is from the testimony of Daniel W. Gorton, at the time the Desktop Support Services Manager for Multnomah County. Mr. Gorton was called as a witness for the defense; the section below comes from his cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff.

The main reason I highlight this section is to point out how even the simplest of questions seems to cause confusion for Mr. Gorton. Even when the counsel is simply repeating a question that the counsel for the defense asked him moments before!

Fun stuff. Enjoy. My emphasis added, along with running commentary.

Q. Mr. Gorton, do you remember -- first of all, did you participate in the decision to place Mrs. Scott on administrative leave?

A. No.

Q. I think you said that in your affidavit submitted in support of the summary judgment motion in this matter, correct?

A. I might have said that.

Don't go out on a limb, there, Mr. Gorton.

Q. And you and I had a deposition together, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall my asking you the question, "Did you participate in the decision to put her on administrative leave"?

A. Yes, I recall it.

Q. Do you recall your answer?

A. Yeah. I believe I said I participated in it, but after -- I mean, that deposition was a bit confusing for me, the questions that were asked were confusing, and I -- that's the first time I'd been in that situation. After I thought about it -- and I think I'd mentioned I'd confused John Turner's investigation with a lot of other things that had gone on in that period of time.

Q. The question, "Did you participate in the decision to put her on administrative leave," confused you? Is that your testimony?

A. Could you repeat that. Could you repeat that, please.

...you mean like you just did?

Q. The statement, "Did you" -- the question, "Did you participate in the decision to put her on administrative leave" confused you?

A. Yes.

This might be his first (only?) honest answer here.

Q. Were you aware that at the time you signed your affidavit for the summary judgment that you had stated something different in your deposition?

A. No.

Q. You did not review your deposition prior to signing an affidavit stating that you did not participate?

A. I read my deposition afterwards.

Q. You testified in response to counsel's question about -- I think the statement was by counsel an unprecedented breach by Mrs. Scott in accessing computer-related materials. Do you remember that testimony?

A. No, I don't.

Q. I'm talking about today.

A. Unprecedented?

Q. I believe counsel's question -- that's my phrase, that's my recollection, I may be wrong. I understood him to ask you the question, did you believe that Mrs. Scott's access of certain aspects of the County computer system was an unprecedented breach of trust. I think that was the phrase. That's my recollection. Do you recall that question?

A. Yes.

Q. And you agreed with him, didn't you?

A. I don't -- I'm not sure I'm understanding. The question I'm hearing you say is access. What I heard him saying was the -- it was more that the inappropriate access. So I'm hearing two different questions.

Q. Okay. Do you understand the question now?

A. Just the access wasn't an issue, it was the type of access and the people that were being accessed that were the issue.

Q. Okay. That's fine. You do remember that exchange then?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was unprecedented in your view, I assume, because no one else had done it?

A. I said that I haven't seen anyone that's done that level of checking.

Ooooh! Cagey... For those scoring at home, the definition of "unprecedented", according to Dictionary.com is: "Having no previous examples." I just love people who can't just come out and agree with someone, but has to restate their agreement in their own words.

So, in summary, he wasn't involved even if he'd said he was before, he doesn't remember anything, including the previous 10 minutes, and he's not sure why he's here in the first place, and besides, he doesn't remember anything.

Check back next Tuesday for more snippets and sections from the transcripts! Believe me, there's plenty of juicy stuff in there...

Why trust me?

Why should you trust someone who is writing for a blog titled "The Lie Factory"?

Titling it that, choosing that domain, may have been counter-productive for me. I chose the domain in a fit of anger a year ago, and intended for the phrase to apply only to those whom I would write about, not me or my blog. In conversation with a friend, describing local politics, I coined the phrase, and in a flash had checked to see if the domain was available and registered it before a cooler head prevailed and rational thought had resumed.

Stil, I think it's a useful phrase, even if I have to add a disclaimer under the title pointing out my relationship to said factory. I think most folks will get it.

And as for trusting me... still a good question, and one I intend to answer over time. 'Cause that's the only way trust is built up, by continuing to speak openly and honestly, by admitting my biases up front, by engaging in conversation with my readers through comments and emails and other blog posts, and by being able to admit when I am wrong or uneducated.

Statement of Intent

Welcome to The Lie Factory. Here is where I will be posting my opinions (carefully labeled as such) and facts (should also be obvious) about politics, local, state, national and (rarely, since I am an American) international.

Quite the cynical name, isn't it? Well, since I have such low hopes for politicians of all stripes, I think it fits. The politicians and pundits seem to be quite the truth-benders, don't they? Like they were managers and workers in an industry built on lies. Yes, even the "good" ones - those being the ones whose motives seem to agree with me.

As someone once wrote, "Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice."

My objective? To toss a wooden shoe into the machinery. To open the windows, roll back the doors, clean up the skylights. To turn on the lights. Yell "coffee break!" in the middle of busy season. Hijack the delivery trucks. Seduce the receptionist. Fire the sales people.

Bring a little truth to the place.