The "other" Sally

From Sally C. 12/14/08

I just happened to have read a blogspot called recall 2008-9. It was written by a part time employee of the City of St. Helens. It appears that she loves how Mayor Peterson conducts himself and hates the present City Council. I don't know her, but it is apparent that she was heavily involved in the attempt to recall Doug Morton and Phil Barlow. In her blog she makes nasty personal attacks on the people that she works for. Bill mentioned to me that she even wore a recall button when she went to work. I can understand the concept of free expression, but I think that this person's free expression borders on outright insubordination. This alone should be a good reason to dismiss her. I am curious as to why she seems to like the Mayor as much as she does. Our Mayor is never around when he is needed, he even misses City Council meetings. I wonder what sort of ties exist? Is she related, are there friends or are there finances involved?

I personally think that St. Helens has been one of the most corrupt and self serving communities around, and it was only in the last two years that the present City Council has made an attempt to clean things up. Is this person involved with the old City Council and is she financially benefiting from some of the past corruption that used to occur?

People's memories may be short, but I still remember when Mayor Randy Sabotaged the Fire Rescue boat and because of high placed friends, was promoted instead of disciplined. I also remember how the Mayor and all his friends got cell towers, and bill board sites. Only the "in people" were given this opportunity. Does anyone remember the sale of land by the river that belonged to the Mayor and former police chief. The Mayor argued the year before that it was assessed too high, and asked that his property tax be reduced. He said that it could not be built on, was subject to flooding, and was not large enough to do anything of value.

He managed to get the assessment lowered to $36,980. Imagine everyone's surprise when he sold it the very next year for $385,000 to the City of St. Helens. Nice profit, and just one of many "Good Old Boy" happenings. Do you recall when all electrical work was given to the Mayors business, all collections were made through a Councilman's collection agency, and all the insurance went to a Council Person's insurance agency? These people ran for government positions because they could find ways in which government would benefit them personally. St. Helens is a growing community, and deserves something better than a bunch of drinking buddies running it for their own benefit.

The voters of our community finally managed to enact a change, and rid the city of most of these "close friends." After two years of clean government, a number of very wealthy and well connected people seem to want to get the new councilors recalled. Now why is this the case?

I read the recall blog, and I wonder about this part time employee blogger. Why is she so defiant and insubordinate? I know that the economy is turning bad and that cuts need to be made. I think that it might be to everyone's best interests if she was one of the people that they would consider cutting. I think that the existing Councilors are just too nice. This person, through her actions is causing problems for the City and with the publics perception of the City. Getting rid of this person would save the City embarrassment, money, and create a much more healthy working environment for everyone concerned.

from the ever-amazing St. Helens Update

PS, I'm thinking of forwarding this to Mayor Peterson and asking if my bonus checks are lost in the mail or something. Anyone know who the heck Sally C is? I just wanted to congratulate her for getting all her facts straight.

Good point

A City employee told me yesterday that he/she had overheard one of the managers making inquiries about purchasing a boat for Sand Island trips this summer. He/she was concerned that the City would be spending money on a boat when it's in financial despair. Good point.

I'm sure there will be justifications....it comes from Tourism money is the one that quickly comes to mind. The Arts & Cultural Commission just lost $12,000 of their funding (general fund) due to budget cuts. How is Tourism funded?

Thanks due

Thanks are due to Chad Olsen, City Administrator in St. Helens, for his continued efforts to find solutions to the budget crisis.

Over several weeks of council indecision, Olsen presented ideas and made suggestions. The three options he brought to the table at Wednesday's special work session finally "took" and the council agreed by consensus to use one of them as a first step to bringing the budget into balance.

The chamber was nearly full with visitors, several of them employees. The agreed upon path avoids any immediate staff layoffs (for weeks, at least four people have been concerned about losing their jobs by the end of the year) and calls for "everything on the table" when the budget committee convenes in January to start work on the FY 2009-10 budget.

The decision was a good one and the work ahead will be difficult, but I don't think we'd have gotten to this point (finally) without Chad's efforts.

So, thank you, Chad.

So, the City Administrator had a meeting with the union represented employees today to discuss the City's financial situation. Somehow, between the Tuesday work session and today's meeting with employees, things have changed again.

Several of us left the Tuesday work session believing the decision had been made to accept all cuts put on the table by the departments a couple of weeks back in work session, except for the cuts to personnel in the Police Dept.

In today's meeting, employees were told that everything is back on the table. I understand that to mean staff, too. And, not just PD staff.

Is there no communication in this place? And, how long will employees be left hanging out to dry? What happened between Tuesday afternoon and Thursday afternoon? And, where did it happen? Behind closed doors?

No one seems to know the answers, but the decision to convene a special Council work session on Wednesday, December 10, at 4:00 p.m. leads some of us to believe it could be important to be in attendance. Maybe a show of faces--employees and citizens--will get these guys off the dime. Time for some decisions.

I suggest we all be there if we can. Pet projects (whine, whine, I know) need to be set aside and the good of the City as a whole needs to take precidence. Essential staff is just that: essential.

Maybe they should just "can" the Judge since earlier this year they seemed to think they could do her job better (and less expensively) than she does. And, maybe they can terminate some of the more frivolous staff positions while they're at it.

Maybe we just need a big, bad case of employee flu to see just how well the City runs without staff. It's a fair bet that SH would do better without three of the existing councilmen than wihtout existing staff. (I'd say four of the councilmen but Charles Grant has just flown the coop--sore loser or did he just never care?? Nice time to bail, Chas.)

One thing, for sure, I'm very curious as to what the delay is. They seem to all have acknowledged on Tuesday that they were finally aware there is a problem with the budget; how long do they think they can delay making some decisions?

And, lastly, just to stick a thorn in the sides of the three "pet project boys" I am sorely tempted to transcribe the minutes of the May 27 joint meeting between the City Council and the Budget Committee where Marilyn Peterson clearly stated the $1.2 million issue, and some Budget Committee members clearly indicated their understanding of the issues and asked the council to step up.

Maybe I'll send copies of the transcribed joint meeting minutes to Locke, Barlow, and Morten, and for good measure, to the Spotlight as well. Enough people in St. Helens will be struggling this holiday season, why shouldn't these guys feel a little discomfort as well?

Take your fingers out of your ears, Councilors!

I continue to be amazed that I keep hearing some of the councilors talk about not knowing anything about the potential budget woes before Marilyn Peterson told them last work session. As late as yesterday's work session, Phil still acted as if it was some huge conspiracy....that everyone knew about the budget issues except him...like people kept the information from him. I guess have to forgive them for being so upset over the recall statements.......if you can believe them, they actually didn't know!

I'm confused as to how that is possible. Marilyn told admin staff last Spring. Chad seems to think it was discussed with councilors last spring, and yet they are still whining about not knowing. Hence the title of this post.

I thought several comments were entertaining in yesterday's work session. Phil said he felt he was being "screwed" and called it a "big screw." I think he was referring to the fact that he'd not been told about the budget problems and had to read about them in the paper. (Assume he's referring to the quotes from Marilyn Peterson in the paper about the urgent need to address the budget shortfall. I think that indicates he can read, so why didn't he read his materials last Spring?)

Phil was also pretty direct, too, about saying staff needs to be cut. I wanted to jump up and suggest he and the others cut their self-awarded pay increases, work session snacks, and any other perks they've got before he said another word about cutting staff. But, I limited my show of disgust to a few eye rolls.

Fortunately, the way things played out, there will be cuts to expenses but not to staff this time around. However, it was made clear....well, let's say that I heard it: come next budget cycle (for fiscal year 2009-2010) everything is on the table. That means staff, too. The current plan is to let attrition work its wonders, but at least one manager at City Hall says that staff cuts were promised, even if it wasn't actually said in yesterday's meeting.

On a silly note, I made coffee this afternoon for the council meeting tonight and told the folks I work with that I spit in it. No one believed me, of course, but one person actually gave me a high-five for it and said it was about time! And, no, I didn't really do it. These guys have enough problems without my spit in their coffee!!

You tell 'em, Marilyn! But, don't expect that they will listen or hear....

St. Helens faces budget crunch

City's finance director tells council 'act now' or risk running out of cash reserves
By Kelly Moyer

The South County Spotlight, Nov 26, 2008, Updated Nov 26, 2008

Faced with expenditures that outweigh revenues by roughly $1.2 million a year, the city of St. Helens is rapidly blowing through its cash reserves.
Now the City Council must decide whether they want to cut $500,000 from the budget today to avoid major cuts in the future.

“Every month that goes by is going to make it even worse,” says St. Helens Finance Director Marilyn Peterson of the city’s increasingly critical financial situation. “The city needs to act now or we will have spent through all our cash reserves by 2010.”

City councilors aren’t so convinced. Last month they asked the city’s department heads to put together a scenario of what cuts they would need to make to reduce the city’s expenditures by 10 percent.

Last week, those department heads presented some very bleak scenarios to the council.
If the total budgetary cuts were to equal 10 percent, nearly $500,000, the city would likely have to cut $268,506 from the police department; $94,220 from city administration; $73,046 from the library; and $60,000 from the park department.
That’s equivalent to four police positions, one administrative position and one part-time library position.

“If they wait until next year, they’re going to have to cut $1.2 million,” Peterson says. “And they would lose numerous positions. The cuts, if they wait, are going to be significant.”

In the 10 percent reduction scenarios presented to council on Wednesday, Nov. 19, the city’s department heads tried to eliminate as much as they could before chopping positions. For instance, the police chief proposed cutting nearly $20,000 in materials, including $3,409.11 in gasoline and $2330.90 in equipment expenses, but still put four positions on the chopping block and said he would reduce overtime by $7,000.

The city administrators proposed doing away with the councilors’ pay, which would save $35,000, cutting the public art expense for a savings of $12,000 and not pursuing an urban renewal district, which would save $15,000. Even with those cuts, they would still need to cut a position (in this scenario, the economic development director) to meet the 10 percent reduction.

“I think they’ll need to pick and choose,” says Peterson. “They have safety issues and central services to consider, so they may choose to look at nonessential services like the library and parks.”

Skip Baker, the city’s head of economic development, says he thinks councilors may not have understood the full extent of the problem until after they adopted this year’s budget.

“There are a lot of different ways to be told you need to make cuts,” Baker says. “The council didn’t really understand how much they needed to adjust the budget until after it passed. That’s not to say that (Peterson) isn’t doing her job, because she is doing a good job, it’s just that not everything comes across in layman’s language sometimes.”

After the city’s manager, Chad Olsen, grasped the full extent of St. Helen’s financial troubles, Baker says, he sat down with Peterson to create a more understandable picture for the council. Last month, the mayor asked department heads to put together the 10 percent reduction scenarios to see what type of impact that might have on people and materials.

Baker says the situation hasn’t necessarily reached critical status yet, but agrees with Peterson that the city may be in for rough times if the council doesn’t act now.
“Once you run out of reserves you don’t have the ability to handle emergencies,” Baker says. “So you either make cuts now or you wait two years and have to make bigger cuts.”

Councilors said last week that they need more time to analyze the department heads’ scenarios and to explore other options, including looking at ways to increase the city’s revenues to better balance the financial outlook.

However, most city administrators, including Baker and Peterson are optimistic that the situation will improve in the next year or two.

“Clearly the problem is due to the economy,” Baker says. “Two years ago we weren’t going through these types of negative (numbers). We began to lose money last year as the economy slowed down. When interest rates went down we made less money from our interest, and as energy use goes down we make less money from our franchise fees.”
Peterson agrees.

“I don’t see anything that points to this getting any better,” she says of the city’s financial future. “In fact, this may get even uglier. The council should have made these decisions back in May. It’s only getting worse, so the faster they make these cuts, the easier it will be.”

Copyright 2008 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • 503-226-6397

The City with the healthy budget

"Healthy." I think that's the word Barlow used to describe the City's fiscal situation a few weeks ago. Last night at the Council's evening work session, Finance Director Marilyn Peterson once again told the council the same news she'd given them earlier this year. The City will be $1.2 million into the reserve funds by June 2009 and, without drastic changes, could be bankrupt by June 2010.

Currently each department has been asked to suggest ways to cut 10% from their budgets and define how that would affect services to the public.

At last night's meeting only Police Chief Steve Salle' put staff on the line. His $2.8 million budget is personnel-heavy; all but about $400,000 is personnel, in fact. So, a 10% cut for the PD means staff. He unwillingly offered up four positions and then (very well, I thought) explained the difficulties the department would face without these positions, and how it would drastically affect services.

Parks, the Library, and administration made their suggestions and there was little discussion, with the council deciding to consider their options and make some decisions at their next work session (December 2 at 1:00 pm in Council Chambers).

Two interesting comments: one from Barlow, which I heard, and one from Morten which was voiced after I left so I don't know the exact context. Barlow said he thought since the PD was "willing" to give up four positions, the rest of the departments should do the same. First, Chief Salle' was not WILLING, nor do I think the four people affected by this would be willing. Second, I wanted to ask him if he was willing to give up his self-awarded stipend as a show of good faith!

Morten apparently said something along the lines of how he thought it was important to continue to scheduled park projects (specifically, the Columbia View Park improvements and beautification efforts just underway). The way I heard it was that he was suggesting park projects should continue even though the PD was losing a patrolman, both code enforcement officers, and a clerk. Again, I'm curious to know whether or not he intends to cut his stipend before he cuts jobs OR continues park improvements.

Way to go, boys.

The budget discussion is worrisome no matter how you view it. With Boise's closures, the City is in an even more difficult situation. At least two of the councilors last night indicated that Marilyn Peterson's information about a $1.2 million deficit was news to them, despite the fact that she said it in the joint Council-Budget Committee meeting last Spring (it's on tape) and provided the information to them in writing at some point earlier this year.

THIS is why Sally's recall petitions said the city could be in trouble financially. We heard it, we read it, where were the councilors?

Something else to ponder, I think, is the reaction all of this will get from the public, if and when the council or city decides to address it in a very public way. Granted, their meetings are public. But, will there be a public forum? Will there be information in the newspapers? Will the public be asked their opinions? Or, will the council simply make their decisions and forego public input? Who knows?

Several of us were talking at work today about the opportunity the council has here to be proactive: make the situation very public and get people involved; ask the public what they think the city should do to stay on an even keel financially. I'll be anxious to see what they do.

One thing is certain: there will be no easy decisions. Even among City staff that I've spoken with, there is great dissension. One PD staffer actually said, "close the library completely." A public works fellow thinks the PD gets everything because they claim to be "essential," which he reads as "better than everyone else." A court employee says we can't allow the PD to be cut. Do you see where I'm going here?

It's a no-brainer that something has to go and it's just as clear that most people choose based on their own biases. Not a surprise, but not very conducive to mutual agreement.

I work with the Arts & Cultural Commission and support them, but I can see that the $15,000 that was allotted them this year is something that can be easily and wisely cut from the general fund expenses. I am a strong supporter of libraries, books, reading, reading programs, etc., but yes, I think the Library could and should go back to being open just six days a week if that will help the general fund. And, as much as I support the parks and know that they work on a shoestring as it is, I think any planned projects that are "beautification" only need to be set aside.

And, yes, I think the PD is "essential" and libraries, parks, and art are not. I don't always practice what I preach, but I'm a firm believer in "needs" over "wants." Cut whatever you have too, INCLUDING COUNCILOR SALARIES, but don't cut the PD staff in favor of the councilors pet projects.

Councilor Chronicles and other ramblings

The City's Tourism Commission recently voted to fund the private, non-profit St. Helens Foundation's event advertising. The Foundation is not an arm of the City of St. Helens. Is this ethical? Legal? And, oh gosh. Can we even guess which councilor is on that commission and suggested that idea??

Possibly the same councilor who stores Foundation items at City Hall (the big movie screen from Friday night movies, equipment, tables, supplies and road signs...road signs which, by the way, clearly say they belong to the SHPD...maybe when they aren't in use by this councilor?).

It's likely the same councilor who recently helped empty an old building downtown to get it ready to host St. Helens Foundation Halloween events. Sadly, the carpet remnants and such he removed from the building ended up in City Hall storage. Free, I'm sure.

Now the ramblings...

We're in the throes of cutting back at City Hall, looking for ways to save money. (Remember when Barlow and Morten assured us we had no budgetary concerns?) Each department has been asked to suggest ways to cut 10% from their existing budget and define how those cuts might affect them and the services they offer.

Among my suggestions, which I can assume will not be very well accepted:

1. Cut councilors salaries (and this one had better happen before any staff is cut)
2. Charge the St. Helens Foundation rental fees
3. Cut out councilor snacks at work session meetings
4. Cut the Gazette ego-letter down to four pages
5. Put the Parks Department back together with Public Works to cut the cost of running the extra building, and maintenance, and communication/internet fees

Careful, I'm on a roll. Why don't we ask the councilors to give up the office which they rarely use, moving them to a space upstairs so that their office (downstairs) could be used for the cramped admin, building, planning staff in the front office. Customer service suffers because there's not enough counter space.

And, lastly, the City has, at the suggestion of its attorney, decided to revise wording on the Certificates of Insurance required with park use applications for groups of 50 or more persons. It is now required that the certificate clearly state that the City of St. Helens is an "additional insured" and that it name the date and place of the event for which the coverage is provided. I'm looking forward to seeing compliance from the St. Helens Foundation and its leaders.

But, as with all this stuff, I'm not holding my breath!

In case you missed it in the Spotlight 11-12-08

Sally Gump is taking a vacation.

And after fighting what seems to be two imaginary lawsuits against her for the past four months, a break is probably in order.

“You know, I’m happy to take two months off,” Gump says. “I’ve decided I’m not going to screw up my holidays because of those two. … But I’ll be back. I’m going to continue the recall effort.”

The St. Helens mother and local political activist has made news headlines over the past several months — first for her efforts to recall two St. Helens city councilors and then for the defamation suit those two councilors filed against her.

But after hiring an attorney to fight the libel suits, Gump learned last month that city councilors Doug Morten and Phil Barlow had never really sued her.

According to Columbia County Circuit Judge Steven B. Reed, until the two men’s attorney, James Huffman, served Gump the proper paperwork, there were no lawsuits.

The judge said Oct. 27 that Barlow had until Nov. 3 to serve Gump the correct paperwork and Morten had until Nov. 4.

When those deadlines came and went, Gump realized she wouldn’t have to fend off libel suits. She and her attorney, Michael Sheehan, believe the councilors filed the suits to scare people away from Gump’s recall efforts.

“People were really scared,” Gump said Monday, nearly a week after Barlow and Morten missed the filing deadlines. “Now I have more people willing to help me, willing to get rid of the bad seeds. People here want city people to work for them and not for themselves and their own agendas.”

Because the two men didn’t follow up on their lawsuits, Reed had no jurisdiction to rule on Gump’s attorney’s motion to dismiss the suits, which meant he also couldn’t award attorney’s fees to Gump.

As it turns out, Sheehan has said he won’t charge Gump for his services.

“I’m grateful he didn’t charge me,” Gump said. “I would be really (angry) if I’d had to pay for this.”

One thing that did upset Gump was the fact that Morten, who was unsuccessful in his recent bid against incumbent St. Helens Mayor Randy Peterson, stopped at the Gumps’ house during his campaign stops.

When Gump asked him about the defamation lawsuit, she says Morten told her “It was out of his hands.”

“He said Mr. Barlow was going to proceed with his suit, but then it never happened,” Gump said. “To me it was like, ‘Well, we’ll wait and see what happens, but then nothing happened.”

Doug Morten and attorney James Huffman did not return calls by The Spotlight’s deadline, and Phil Barlow could not be reached in time to comment on this story.

[by Kelly Moyer]

This, I realize in hindsight, is why Sally was a good Chief Petitioner for the recall. Not only did she do an amazing job of carrying the recall as far as she did, she also always maintained her dignity and integrity, and still does. Unlike Sally, I'd have my attorney drawing up papers to sue them for my attorney fees if the CP shoes were on my feet. I'd be dragged right down there with the bozos.

If she takes on the recalls again in January, I'm with her.

Hiatus?

Sally's taking back her life for the next couple of months and I'm inclined to do the same. I'll post as often as the news is there and you're all welcome to post anytime as well, but there won't be daily posts for the next couple of months.

Meantime, take this pat on the back: Randy was re-elected and Pat Martyn joins the council in January. The recall councilors showed their true colors and we maintained our integrity (even when they gave us repeated reasons to stoop to their level). We've learned a lot and made some new friends, and we've kept Doug in his place for another couple of years. We'll let you know when the victory party is.

In the meantime, be well and check back now and then. And, don't forget to be involved--let them know we continue to watch and that we expect responsible representation.

A happy high-five and THANK YOU!

All they ever really wanted.

As we fully expected, of course, the deadline for Doug and Phil to serve Sally properly and get on with the suits has passed. No service, no suits, no day in court. No opportunity for people to see their councilors defend themselves in public. And, if I remember correctly, that's all they ever wanted. At least they said that was all they really wanted.

By the way, no further word yet on the extra 28 days that Judge Reed supposedly gave Huffman to finish the case. We'll keep you posted.

Wonder if April will testify to that?

The news April gave me is this. She was told by Judge Reed that he is extending their filing on me for another 28 days. She's going to go find out what it's about. I'll call Mike tomorrow after work. I'm not worried. Morten told April that they only filed it to scare me and have me fold in. They didn't think I was smart enough.

from an email from Sally

I'm lost for a title for this one .......... you choose!

I've been hesitant to post this, because it feels a bit like voyerism. But, the race is won and I'm still scratching my head over this. It was the only comment posted on his website, it's seven years old, and it sounds kind of, uh, personal. Why did he post it on his campaign website? Note that even "Cindy" suggests these comments should be shared "quietly." Wonder if she knows it's been posted for the world to see?

6/15/01

Mort,

The program at the luncheon seemed so scripted that I didn’t find an appropriate moment to interrupt, then it was too late. I really felt badly in that I did prepare remarks that I think the staff should have heard from an arts person. But to follow the humorous and raucous tribute of the Troika and Slick was too much for this serious stuff. Perhaps it is better to share these thoughts quietly.

I intended to start by asking if any one knew of Ansel Adams or Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane. And then Hockney, which I would suspect few would recognize, yet many may have seen the student work inspired by him. I think Hockney provides the perfect paradigm to describe your career in arts education and athletics.

I would have explained to everyone that Hockney investigated Picasso’s pictorial ideas known as cubism. Picasso essentially attacked Renaissance concepts of space, “looking through the window” school of realism. Cubism is about seeing from multiple perspectives, the way in which our eyes take in multiple and shifting view. Hockney calls this the “flicker and scanning of binocular vision,” which with the camera can capture space, time, and movement.

Some may see the students’ photo collages as lightweight investigations or fanciful trickery. Yes, some may appear that way, bug Hockney affirms that “vision is like hearing, it is selective, you decide what’s important.” To me this is the paradigm that represents what you have brought to students over 31 years—-the ability to see from multiple perspectives and to capture space, time, and movement. You have inspired, befriended, taught almost 5000 students in ceramics, graphic design, photography, and year book. (My first inept calculations produced the modest number of 29,000 – glad I’m not teaching math. After 31 years it probably seems the number could be that large).

As a Lincoln parent I can say with great appreciation that you have inspired my son in ways that will affect him the rest of his life. You have opened his mind to the wonders of photography, but you have also created awareness about life skills such as team work, organization, cooperation no matter what direction he takes in life.

As a student teacher at Lincoln 13 years ago, I had the good fortune to work with an outstanding department—Crosier, Speros, and Morten. You all are part of a generation of arts teachers who passionately believe that the arts make a difference in the lives of their students; that content knowledge gives shape to vision and creates meaning; and that the experience of studio work can build self esteem and appreciation of others.

As a colleague these past 12 years, you have always been ready with a smile and a pat on the back. You are the calming force in our sometimes dysfunctional department. I say dysfunctional only in that we are a small department of both visual and performing arts and sometimes get stretched to the point of fragmentation. You Mort have always seemed to be the voice of reason.

An finally a tribute I heard from a senior humanities student as our class discussed your retirement. She said “Mort taught me to see.” Some of our faculty may think this is a small thing, but those of us in the arts know this is a wonderful tribute and a gift that all arts teachers should hope to impart to their students.

Man Ray in his book on modern photography (1957) said: “Of course there will always be those who look only at technique, who ask ‘how?’ while others of a more curious nature will ask ‘why?’ Personally I have always preferred inspiration to information.” You Doug have been both informational and inspirational as a teacher, a colleague, and a friend to many of us at Lincoln! Thank you and congratulations on your retirement!

Most Sincerely,

Cindy

ST HELENS RE-ELECTS RANDY AND OUSTS CHARLES FOR PAT!

YAHOOOOOO!!!

St. Helens voters got at least two things right! Congratulations to Randy Peterson and Pat Martyn!

I'd have posted sooner but I've been on the phone doing the "we won, we won" dance with friends!

BY THE WAY, the boyz didn't refile against Sally. She's catching up on sleep and her personal life until January and will make new recall announcements then!

I'm calling them out!

Isn't that what you say when you want some one to show up for a fight?!

I'm calling out Doug and Phil--bring it. If you want your day in court, your chance to "tell your side of the story," then by all means, do it. Amend your court papers, file properly, serve the malicious Ms. Gump and let's get on with it.

I, for one, am dying to hear YOUR side of the story.

I'll hold my breath until Tuesday, November 4th at 5:00 p.m., when your papers are due in court, and then I'll just have to assume that you couldn't come up with any facts to dispute the recall statements or just weren't interested in putting any effort behind your words. Worst of all, guys, I'll know this was a game. So will all of your constituents.

So, prove me wrong. St. Helens is waiting.

To the Publisher and Editor of The Chronicle

Please discontinue my subscription to your paper.

When I moved to this area four years ago, I started a subscription to the paper I considered “local” to my home in Columbia City. Yours. In those four years, I’ve read the paper cover to cover, week after week, and while picking up some bits and pieces of the news, I’ve primarily used the paper as a piece to practice my proofreading and spell-checking. (Did you know there’s a feature on computers these days that does much of that for you??)

During the past three months I’ve been heavily involved in the recall effort against St. Helens City Councilors Doug Morten and Phil Barlow, as have many residents of the St. Helens area—whether they were for or against the issue.

Your paper was given the first opportunity to run with the story, courtesy of Sally Gump’s personal friendship with one of your writers. Imagine my dismay and confusion to find that the South County Spotlight broke the story, and then, in form with a “news” paper, followed it throughout. This, despite repeated efforts to offer information first to your staff.

There are two things that should have triggered my decision to cancel my subscription, early on:

First, the St. Helens City Council's decision to switch back to the Chronicle as their paper of record after the South County Spotlight ran an interview with Mayor Randy Peterson in which he criticized the actions and behavior of the current council. This article was followed shortly afterward with an interview with Councilor Doug Morten. Even reporting, I think. The Council, however, at the urging of Councilor Phil Barlow, voted to change paper of record almost immediately following the interview with Peterson.

That decision might have been a simple change of heart among councilors, perhaps even to bring the paper of record distinction back to the town paper, IF the Chronicle had even once printed a story after that time that was not pro-council. It left many of us at City Hall shaking our heads and commenting on the power of a few councilors as opposed to the historic power of the press.

And, second, the day that Sally Gump told me she had all but been tossed out of the Chronicle because management there didn’t want her and her recall buddies in the building. This came in response to another attempt by Sally to give your reporter a heads up regarding the recall. And, predictably, nothing of the recall efforts made the Chronicle columns until Phil and Doug filed their SLAPP suits against Sally. The Chronicle in its infinite wisdom ran a glorifying article about the poor, put upon councilors as well as the indignant replies of the councilors to Sally’s attempt to recall them. (Keep those councilors happy and stay in business, I guess, huh? Damned be the news.)

Still, I wanted to believe you were truly good to your name and would report the news. So, I've watched the papers for weeks; I’ve never ceased to be amazed at what the Chronicle considers newsworthy and, oddly enough, what it chooses to ignore. Absolutely no word of the lawsuit coming to court made the paper the week it occurred. (I am anxious to see if the topic will ever appear in print again if left to you.) The only concession to actual coverage of the court scene was my letter, which appeared in the letters to the editor section two days after the court date. My assumption here is that if you print a letter to the editor in direct opposition to the councilors, you have "reported" on the topic without putting yourselves in the line of fire, so to speak.

I studied journalism in school. I read avidly. I know the definition of “news.” You have missed the boat more than once on this front; you are NOT publishing a newspaper according to the acknowledged definition of the word. Control of the press is the often the first sad sign of the demise of democracy and freedom. Many locals may not recognize your part in that, but I do. It is clear that the councilors of St. Helens, led by Phil Barlow, Doug Morten, and Keith Locke, have control of what you print, whether by their actions or your acceptance of their control.

My fondest hope is that you will pick up a dictionary or an old textbook and refresh your memory as to the purpose and, indeed, the responsibility of a newspaper. The councilors already have their propaganda rag, the city’s "news"letter, the Gazette (and it is proofed and edited about as well as yours). Citizens don’t need another councilor ego piece, especially one disguised as a newspaper.

I’ve had enough. I’ll find my proofreading exercises elsewhere. Please cancel my subscription.

Good luck.

Kim Bauer
Columbia City

"Gump"tion

“Gump”tion! (Noun) 1. Shrewdness in practical matters; common sense; 2. Courage and initiative; enterprise and boldness

Have you ever wondered what Sally Gump, local RECALL petitioner, was doing this past summer? Sally was attending City meetings and preparing to submit RECALL petitions to RECALL two of her local elected officials. Why, you ask? Because she was fed up with the lies and disrespect that had been permeating throughout the short terms of those Council members.

Sally is a hard working wife, mother, housecleaner, friend, and volunteer in her community. She served on the City’s Charter Review Committee and also on the St. Helens Parks Commission for many years as well as many other committees throughout the years and for various reasons. She has devoted a tremendous amount of her volunteer time and energy in making St. Helens a better place for all of its citizens. She does it because she cares.

After filing the RECALL petitions, low and behold, the two elected officials whom she was petitioning to RECALL sued her. Yes, they hired a well-known, not so respected, local attorney to represent them. So, the fact is, that in Sally’s bid to exercise her right to RECALL her local officials, they turned around and filed a lawsuit against her. Can you say “SLAPP SUIT”? Unbelievable!

So, following along these lines, when you’ve heard that City employees are afraid of retaliation if they speak up to correct or refocus certain Councilors, do you see where they’re coming from now?

Sally Gump is a local hero and she has “GUMP”tion! There are so many people, citizens and business owners alike, who are in support of the RECALL but so afraid to sign the petitions for fear of some form of retaliation by these officials. Their attorney even threatened to take every person who signed the petitions into court. It’s very sad to me that these officials are really not accountable to anyone because they can say whatever they want and who are you to question them?

Please join me in making sure that ALL CITIZENS HAVE A VOICE without fear of retaliation. It may be too late to sign the RECALL petitions but it’s not too late to speak up and make your vote count.

Suicide note!

I thought you would find it amusing that a city manager referred yesterday to my letter to the editor (in the Spotlight and the Chronicle) as a "suicide note!"

Time will tell, I expect!

In the meantime, I urge you to read yesterday's Spotlight. (The Chronicle, in its infinite wisdom, seems to have ignored--completely--the story of Morten/Barlow v Gump that was top-of-the-front-page news to the Spotlight!)

Both the front page article and the editor's letter are good. Very good: No justice served ‘til Gump is, by Kelly Moyer (on the front page), and the editorial, Defamation suits stink of SLAPP. (Find a link to the Spotlight in the right hand column on this page under LINKS TO SOURCES.)

The coverage by the Spotlight throughout this recall effort has been good, as was their interview with Randy Peterson some months ago that apparently prompted the City Council, at Phil Barlow's urging, to change the city's "paper of record" to the Chronicle. While that cannot be proved, of course, the timing was precise and no amount of denial on anyone's part works for me.

Much like the soon-to-be-heard, I'm sure, denial that Jim Huffman is such a sloppy attorney that he just made inconvenient errors in his court filing in the Morten/Barlow SLAPP suit!

A nice thing about that sloppy paperwork and Huffman's jittery dancing around in court (wailing about the St. Helens City Recorder being in the audience, really): I can't imagine anyone wanting to hire him for anything! I'd be too afraid he'd screw it up.

Now accepting donations for a case of Ivory soap; Doug at Sally's door, part 2

I asked Doug why he didn't go to the citizenship class thing at the high school last Monday. He said he had been asked a long time ago to talk to the students one on one. He didn't know anything about the Monday night talk. He never got a call, an email, or nothing. This was the first he heard about it. I said, "oh, I must of misunderstood! It's too bad that you didn't do that or another debate somewhere in town. People would have loved seeing that."

I confronted him on his telling me that he wasn't suing me. I told him, "that's not what I heard from [friend]. She told me you told her that you were suing me. Now, why is that???" Blah, blah, blah from Doug.

I then asked him about those paper arches. He denied being the one to put that into motion. He 'recommended' they be removed or someone might get hurt. He had had numerous complaints from people. Little kids were playing on them, and ... someone could get hurt. He didn't make them take those arches down, it wasn't him. It was other people!! He talked about it in work session and people facilitated from that meeting. But, it wasn't him.

I also told him that people weren't happy with the way he handled stuff. I said, "people aren't happy with you." He asked who and I told him your neighbors, other committees in the community, and a lot of citizens.

He told me numerous times how much he liked me and that he had no malice towards me. He wasn't vindictive towards me. He likes Dennis......blah, blah, blah.

And, he promised my neighbor help with the ticket he got from Laura the dog catcher. He told Chuck to use his name at court ....

[What was said in judges chambers before the session began on Monday?] Well, Huffman was really upset to see the city recorder in court. Huffman didn't like all the people in court either. It put a bug in his bonnet.

So, this is the news I wanted you to know. Let [people] know what went on 'in chambers'.... Let [them]know the truth and tell people to keep track of Doug's lies. That boy is going to eat a bar of Ivory.

Sally

Morten is still campaigning....an update from Sally

My own comments in italics!

He came to my door this afternoon. What a gem! He wanted to tell me how much he likes me and that he's not vindictive towards me in any way. He only wanted a public forum where he and I could discuss the issues. Taking me to court was the only way he could tell the people his side of the story. I would like to know if he was so interested in a public forum for discussing the issues, why he (1) never asked for one, and (2) didn't bother to show up in court.

I confronted him on a few things and he played dumb. I really had to hold back telling him off and I did. But, man, did he make me mad.

So, I asked him if he was still going to file against me. He said it was out of his hands. Is he the plaintiff or is Huffman?? He knew that Barlow is going to do so. So, Barlow can make his own decisions but Morten can't?? I said, "Good, my lawyer has his ducks in a row and I'm looking forward to my day in court."

I called my lawyer after this lovely time of talking to Doug and he still feels that they won't file and get stuck paying lawyer fees. We will see just what plays out in the next few days...................I'll keep you posted!!!

Sally

The games people play

I wrote this very quickly in order to get it faxed to both newspapers as soon as possible. It's probably pretty choppy, but I just didn't want this whole thing to be swept under the carpet so Doug looks like some kind of hero for "dropping" a suit that he apparently never intended to actually file.

October 27, 2008

To the Editor:

I just returned from the Morten & Barlow v. Gump courtroom and I am disgusted but knowing Doug Morten and Phil Barlow, not surprised.

The councilors didn’t file their cases or serve their summons on Sally properly, so the case has been held over until next Monday or Tuesday when Judge Steven Reed requested that Attorney Huffman file amendments to the suits that he claims to have intended to file all along.

It became apparent during the half an hour or so spent in court, that this has been a three-month game, intended to deter Sally Gump and the people of St. Helens. From the start, Huffman has “inadvertently” filed faulty forms, partial forms or forms with errors, knowing that he had 90 days from date of filing (August 1 for Barlow, August 2 for Morten) to make amendments.

In the interim, Sally’s time and money have been wasted responding to allegations that she acted with malice to defame the councilors and take over the city. She and the good people of St. Helens have been duped. It looks to me and to many others in court today, as if the intent of the suits was to frighten Sally into dropping her recall efforts and deter citizens from signing recall petitions by the implied threat that they could and would be sued as well. (Councilor Morten actually told a city employee some months ago that he intended to become rich off this suit, supposedly by winning and claiming $10,000 for each signature on the recall petitions.)

Sally Gump filed in good faith for the right to pass petitions calling for the recall of Douglas Morten and Phillip Barlow from the City Council of St. Helens. Can the two of them say the same thing about their SLAPP suit against her? (And, by the way, where were they today? Not in court to face her.)

I will be genuinely surprised if either of their suits is filed properly within the time set. I think this entire lawsuit smacks of game-playing. Talk about a waste of court time and tax payer money! They forced Sally to hire an attorney and incur time and costs so that they could frighten her and others from exercising their first amendment rights.

Is this who you want running your city??

More positive thought

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any . . . crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. ~ Abraham Lincoln

Morten & Barlow v Sally Gump
Monday, October 27 at 3:45 pm
in Judge Steven Reed's courtroom
at the County Courthouse

A simple visible but silent presence in court is all we need, if for no other reason than to show that the citizens of St. Helens do listen and do care about elected officials who sue a citizen for expressing her first amendment rights. Be there to support the woman who was willing to lend her name and endless hours to this recall effort. And, be there so that Doug and Phil know that people are watching. Make them accountable for their actions--in court and in the eyes of their constituents.

Attitudes are contagious

In about 48 hours this recall will be all but over. We'll have finalized the petitions and we will have had our day in court.

It's been a great learning experience, for Sally and for me. I learned (mostly from Sally) that it takes a bit of moxie to take on a couple of elected officials, even in a little town, and it takes a lot of gumption to stick it out! I got to know Sally better through this and never cease to be amazed at her upbeat attitude, her calm demeanor, and her genuine concern for people. She's one in a million.

I'm hoping there's still much to be learned. I hope to find out that elected officials can't get away with suing a citizen for expressing her concerns about the job they are doing. I have to admit that I'm a pessimist. (Sally's opposite!) I'm convinced the judge will hear all this and side with the sad, put-upon councilors. Sorry, it's just the way I am.

I'm also reasonably sure that Doug will find a way to remove my back end from my job, without ever touching the word "retaliation." There are umpteen different ways to accomplish this....downsizing is just one that comes to mind.

I hope, against hope, that the citizens of St. Helens, who may not in the end recall Doug and Phil, will at least give some serious thought to what we've said during this campaign, the fact that we've tried to keep it clean, honest, factual. I hope that they will choose to re-elect Randy, leaving Doug, as the Spotlight pointed out, still on the council and able to express his views.

I also hope voters find it in their hearts and minds to boot Charles Grant and elect Pat Martyn. I may disagree with a good deal of what Doug and Phil do, and I certainly take issue with the way they go about the job, but I have no room left for Charles Grant who in 29 monthly Arts & Cultural Commission meetings over the past couple of years, has made it to only two or three. He is a waste of space on the council; despite the fact that he's more educated than the rest of them put together, he also suffers from a great weakness: the inability to think and act on his own.

I have a button on the bulletin board above my computer that reminds me to think positively now and then, and I try, I really do. It says, "Attitudes are contagious. Is yours worth catching?"

Most times mine is probably not and I just do a really good job of covering that up! I'm lucky to have a steadfast husband who truly believes you must do the right thing, always, even if it's difficult, as well as the support of many of you, and Sally's constancy--all amazing examples of the goodness in people.

This has been an incredible experiment in first amendment rights, right here in our faces, right here in St. Helens. I believe that Sally and the rest of us have the right to our opinions and have the right to let others know those opinions. I believe we have the right to proclaim our disappointment with elected officials, if only to get their attention, make them realize that they are just that: elected officials, public servants, representatives of the citizens. If we want better representation, then we need to let them know and the first amendment gives us the right to do that. In fact, as Americans, I think the first amendment requires it of us.

I believe that everything we've said over these weeks is true. I made a concerted effort to keep my personal dislike of Doug out of the recall statement against him. I based that statement on facts.

I believe that if there was any harm done to Phil and Doug's reputations, they must take a full measure of responsibility for that. They were out of line to file a suit and, as many people have pointed out, the suits only served to advertise the recall. As always, they are often their own worst enemies. They too frequently act without thinking and just as frequently fail to remember that they are representatives of all the people.

I believe that people are good and usually mean well, and if given the chance and the facts, will make wise, educated, thoughtful decisions.

I believe, in the end, people will come to see this as a good, legitimate exercise in democracy, one mounted in good faith.

And, I believe that whether we fail or succeed at the recall, and whether we are held responsible or exonerated in court, we have done the right thing.

My fingers are crossed, and my attitude is positive. Hope it's contagious!

PETITIONS DUE TODAY!!

See column to right for info on how to contact Sally.

Feedback on Doug & Phil's motion to strike

10-25 edit: Sorry, I just realized the link referred to didn't post. Still won't, so the URL is at the bottom of this post; please cut and paste. It's good.

I wonder who is paying for all this legal stuff. I glanced through the response to the Motion to Strike. If any of these arguments were valid we would not be able to have any political campaigns. None of this applies to this case. This is so ludicrous it is almost laughable.

Both candidates for the Oregon Senate claim the other guy wants to raise taxes and they both claim that is not true. I do not think there are ANY rules when it comes to politics. No one really listens to any of these claims anyway.

I have attached an interview done on the Howard Stern show (radio) in Harlem (New York). It does not matter if you are an Obama or McCain supporter. When you listen to this you will realize just how completely out of touch the voters are and that they really do not pay much attention to what they hear and read.

I do not believe Doug and Phil have anything to worry about from what Sally or others say. Sally and all of us who signed the recall have every right to our opinion and if we do not like the direction the City is moving we can tell our friends and neighbors that we believe we need a change in leadership. We see things just the way Sally stated them and they are just as much “fact” as any other political claim.

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

You can push a woman just so far before ...

Taken 10/23 in the employee parking lot at City Hall.

September 2007: Phil pushes BMX track with Parks commissioners

I've been sitting on this for some time. I originally transcribed it as part of the minutes of the 9-17-08 Parks Commission meeting minutes, but deleted it before sending along for approval because I thought it would make Phil look bad.

But, you decide. Is Phil's discussion with the commission a conflict of interest?

Gustafson: You had some other business or old business.

Barlow: Yeah, you know, I would say probably one of them is back in August of 2005, I came to this body and there we were told at that time that a concessionaire agreement was going to be made for the BMX track. At the time, I called every single month for over a year; Tim told me every month [unintelligible]. Every month he would say, “call me next month, that concessionaire agreement will be made.” Because a concessionaire agreement has to go out to public bid so it’s not like I’m asking for something personally or trying to make it, or have an agenda on my end. For one thing, it’s not much of an agenda because BMX track doesn’t make any money, so there’s really no agenda to that part of it.

The other thing is, is, um, I was looking in our minutes and I seen that Tim did ask about, ask you guys, let me see, here, [reading from minutes] “Council Morten asked Whitcomb to inform commissioners that -- about the progress. Barlow added some information. Costs are being compiled. Whitcomb will keep the group [unintelligible] as it is progress, no action is required of the commission. Homan asked if the commission has any concerns about the city funding this project with the council approval. There was none expressed.” So, I just want to make sure that everybody still has that same concern.

[Silence, then two or three people start to talk, not intelligible; Barlow talks over them.]

We need to be brutally honest. We should be brutally honest at this time.

Gustafson: No, no, no. What was the --

Barlow: We’re talking about $4400.

Gustafson: -- were we talking about concession --

Barlow: No, but, to have the track builder come in and complete the track.

Gustafson: Well, your brother came in and was gonna have dirt dumped there --

Barlow: And, that’s what, that has been being done.

Gustafson: -- and at that time we said -- it has or has not?

Barlow: It’s done, pretty much.

Gustafson: They’ve already hauled dirt in?

Barlow: Yeah, we’ve done that.

Gustafson: I need to drive by there a little more than once a week, then. We had no problem with it. But, what you, you know -- we’re a community. If the kids can play or have something to do, I’m all for it. It’s just that it sat and sat and sat and nothing’s happened. I mean, it, we could go on and on --

Barlow: We could go on and on about that issue, I mean I can, I have documents of me coming down many times and trying to make some kind of arrangement. Talking to Brian. Brian would not allow us to go down and mow the lawn, that’s a fact. You know. So, there was a lot of things that really got, you know,and now I’m in a really, you know, weird position, now I’m a councilor and I don’t want people to feel like I’m trying to force my way through something, but I’m telling you I’m so frustrated over the issue because it’s lasted for so long that I’m now (laughs) I am here pushing this forward because I’m tired of waiting.

Brewington: I mean this in the nicest way --

Barlow: Go ahead, John.

Brewington: I don’t know what’s happened to it. I mean, I’d be frustrated if I were you, too, as well. But, for you to address us about it and for us to make a recommendation that goes back to the council --

Barlow: Uh huh.

Brewington: -- I think is a serious conflict of interest for you.

Barlow: I, I don’t believe it is at all. I mean, if you, if you --

Brewington: I, I --

Barlow: How can that be?

Brewington: It’s your personal business --

Barlow: Hold on John.

Brewington: It’s your personal business --

Barlow: No it’s not.

Brewington: You’re a supervising body for this organization --

Barlow: I understand that.

Brewington: -- and so, you’re coming in and asking us to do something that can affect you personally, I think it’s a conflict of interest.

Barlow: Well, you know, I guess we could --

Brewington: Whether it’s --

Barlow: Hey! We could go on and on about that in the City of St. Helens of people that are elected right now that have personally benefited from this city. I mean, there’s facts to that, so I’m saying --

Brewington: I understand that, but I’m talking about this one specific issue.

Barlow: Yeah, but how am I, John, how am I personally benefiting?

Brewington: It’s your business --

Barlow: No, but how, I mean it’s a, you’re talking about an organization, BMX racing, that we nearly paid for every time we race because we have to pay a sanctioning body. That’s even if I get the concessionaire agreement.

Brewington: I understand all that, Phil. It’s not that I have any disagreements with the organization or anything like that. I have disagreements with the process you’re going through right now, where you are addressing a body that reports back to you. It’s basically—-you’re giving us direction to --

Gump: I would suggest that your brother would be the one who --

Barlow: Exactly, that’s what I’ve been trying to he’s a supervisor, he’s at work --

Gustafson: How about if he wrote something, signed his name to it.

Gump: Because you bringing it up does make it look like a conflict of interest.

Barlow: That would be fine, but I still believe that, that, that I believe there is no conflict of interest and I guess we should get our lawyer and ask him that.

Brewington: You should ask Andy.

Barlow: Yeah, I’m gonna ask Andy because I don’t think there’s a conflict of interest.

Brewington: I have no problem with addressing the issue and I’m really kind of concerned about what’s happened to it, too.

Barlow: That’s fine. Because it may not be us. That’s where the whole thing is. That’s where I had the discussion with the mayor. We may not get this concessionaire agreement. So, for you to, for anybody, for this body to assume that what I’m doing is for personal gain to me is a slap in my face.

Brewington: No, no, no, you’ve gone way beyond what I was trying to tell you.

Barlow: No, it is, because this is for the people. The citizens. The kids.

Brewington: I have no problem with that. What I’m trying to tell you is that we basically report to you and Doug and Keith and you are addressing the board about an issue that affects you personally.

Barlow: I don’t believe that.

Brewington: You don’t believe that.

Barlow: No.

Brewington: But, maybe you should --

Barlow: Ok, maybe I should get a cell tower at my house and see how that affects me and maybe I can get money every month, I mean, no, come on. Let’s just go on, John.

Brewington: I don’t want to debate ethics law, I’m just here to say I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to talk us about this.

Gustafson: I’ve heard your request. Ok?

Barlow: Right. And, I guess if we go by this then it was already a done deal and I shouldn’t ever even have showed up. You know what I’m saying?

[unknown]: No, no -- you, you --

Barlow: You guys have already accepted the recommendation to the council from the last time. I guess that’s what you’re saying. I guess I should never even have showed up. I’m sorry. I just don’t understand what, why you believe this is a personal thing.

Gustafson: I didn’t say that.

Brewington: I don’t believe this is a personal thing.

Barlow: No, no, no, you believe, John, you believe it is an agenda. You believe I have a personal agenda.

Brewington: I have nothing to do -- I am addressing the general concept of a city councilor coming to an advisory body that reports back to a city council with an issue that involves him and his business. That’s all I’m saying.

Barlow: But it doesn’t involve me.

Brewington: Well, I think that’s something --

Barlow: We’re facilitating. Like I said last time. We have washed our hands of this, John Brewington.

Brewington: Then why are you bringing it up? If you’re not --

Barlow: Because we are facilitating it. We have a right to facilitate it because the council told us we could facilitate it. Doesn’t mean that we’re going to run it.

Brewington: Then, I think it would be better if the issue -- if Doug or Keith would bring us the issue, rather than for you to do it.

Barlow: Ok. From now on --

Brewington: I have no problem with it. I don’t know what’s going on. I don’t know why it hasn’t been brought back to us. I don’t know what’s going on with it. I would love to --

Barlow: I don’t know either, John. I’ve been asking about it, like I said, for a full year I called Tim, every single month, from '05 to '06, but then I started to run for city council (laughs), but I’ve never seen any action. I know Kevin is supposedly working on a concessionaire agreement right now.

Whitcomb: No, I finished the concessionaire agreement, months and months ago. I gave it to Tim. I don’t remember, somebody asked him in my presence, where it was and he said the lawyers were looking at it and as far as I know it’s been in the lawyer’s office for nine months.

Barlow: Well, if you guys believe it is a conflict of interest, then that’s fine, then from now on Doug or Keith can handle this. That’s fine.

Whitcomb: Well, I think you should check with the lawyer.

Barlow: We will.

Whitcomb: I can see where it could be, but the concessionaire agreement is going to be an agreement that could go to anybody. I mean, we put it out for an open bid and anybody can try for the concessionaire agreement.

Gustafson: It’s gotta be put out.

Whitcomb: Exactly, but we don’t know if he’s even gonna try for it, his business is even gonna try for it. It’s a good point.

Barlow: I fully disclosed -- I mean, yeah, we probably will try for it.

Brewington: It’s not a personal thing. I just know a little bit about the ethics law and I’m really uncomfortable with doing it that way.

Whitcomb: On top of all that, who knows what’s going to come out in the paper or come out in the other website newspaper, so you never know what’s going to come out and it would probably be better to err on the side of caution.

Barlow [on his way out the door]: Well, thank you for listening.

Gustafson: You’re welcome.

I'm so mad...

that I could spit nails! Doug Morten has done it again. He has made a decision that affects the entire city and has made it, very quietly, on his own.

The Paper Arches sculpture that caused so much commotion a little over a year ago has been removed and destroyed at the direction of Councilor Morten, who apparently determined it was not safe for children.

Whether you liked the piece or not is beside the point here; read on. Over the course of many months and much bad-mouthing, the City Council determined that the Arts & Cultural Commission would be allowed to make the decision about how and when the piece was removed.

Read that last sentence again.

In the past three meetings of the Arts & Cultural Commission there has been discussion about partnering with the library to do an Earth Day event (in April). At last night's meeting, in fact, a date was selected. The idea was to do an entire celebration around removing the arches, including discussion and hands-on projects for all ages that would tie the sculpture's decay to Earth Day, recycling, etc. Everyone thought it would be a fitting way to remove the arches.

But, thanks to Doug, forget it. With a brief email sent to a rarely used email address, Public Works Director Dale Goodman notified ONE person that the piece would be taken down. Thank you, Doug. No discussion with the ACC or Council or City Administrator or even the never-present councilor assigned to the Arts & Cultural Commission, Charles Grant. No approval. Just rip it out and keep it quiet. Even at last night's meeting, when someone said they had just received an email about taking the arches down, Phil Barlow said clearly that the Council had decided some time ago to leave that decision and its timing to the Arts & Cultural Commission.

I would love to know just how and why he thought he had the authority to remove the piece. And, I'm not buying public safety. It wasn't ever a hazard to anyone--especially as it has been flat on the ground for months.

You may remember that in an earlier post here I said that Doug had attended an ACC meeting to rather harshly chastise the commission for placing the Paper Arches without consulting him. So, is this his idea of retribution? Or is this yet another example of how these councilors can do whatever they want?

I'll be in the corner spitting nails if you need me. I'm likely to be joined by the Arts & Cultural Commission. Hope we have enough nails. Tell Doug to avoid that corner.

The truck, the mower, breaking rules.............

Received this via email today [author does not want his/her name published].

What I think the Spotlight [Oct 22] missed on the truck and, if someone has the time, should be checked out.

1. It is illegally parked per an ordinance passed by Locke and his groupies.
2. Morten had Gary Melton ticketed for parking on a public right of way on River street next to Dillards Marina with a truck that is almost a twin to this one.
3. I have been told no permit exists to allow the parking in front of Locke's house.
4. The ethics statutes say that basically no elected official may be allowed to have exemptions or privileges that are not available to the general public.
5. The general public is not allowed to park a similar truck in the public right of way as Melton learned when he was ticketed.
6. Therefore the ethics complaint is that the council President has a benefit for his convenience that is not available to the general public.

Ditto for the lawnmower, the safety cones holding up his and Morten's signs on River Street and many other items that these guys have at home. The old scenic views report also supports keeping view areas clear of obstructions so the public has the benefit of the view. The parking in front of Locke's is not in the spirit of this report. I believe Keith was on the committee that developed the report. It is available in Skip's office.

Interesting. And, as I've written here before, Keith Locke and Charles Grant repeatedly fail to comply with requirements for reserving city property for their events. A classic case of "do as I say, not as I do" which I have to assume is because THEY are councilmen (our elected officials) and WE (the electors) are not.

Next on the IRS list: Phil Barlow's tax exempt "church" (AKA the bicycle barn)

Locke 0, IRS 1; on to Barlow's "church"!

Breaking the Rules?
St. Helens Councilor Keith Locke violates IRS rules by using nonprofit van as campaign billboard

By Darryl Swan
The South County Spotlight, Oct 22, 2008


AN IRS NO-NO – The St. Helens Community Foundation’s van, complete with “Keith Locke for City Council” banners on the front, sits outside Locke’s St. Helens home. Using the van for campaigning is a violation of federal Internal Revenue Service law.

St. Helens Councilor Keith Locke says he didn’t consider whether using the nonprofit St. Helens Community Foundation’s van as the billboard for his campaign posters violated tax and campaign laws.

As it turns out, it violates one, but not the other.

The van is parked at his personal residence on Columbia Boulevard in St. Helens. Two posters soliciting his re-election bid to the St. Helens City Council are affixed to the van’s front grill.

The St. Helens Community Foundation is a nonprofit 501c3 organization formed specifically to promote community events, such as the Fourth of July fireworks display, 13 Nights on the River, the Riverside Arts Festival and the Christmas Festival of Lights.

Last year, the foundation’s revenue totaled $76,372, according to the federal nonprofit tax form filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

Federal tax code prohibits such nonprofits from engaging in political activity like campaign contributions and endorsements.

“I didn’t even think about it at the time,” Locke said when asked Monday about using the van for his posters. “You know, now that you mention it, you’re probably absolutely right.”

He said he would remove the posters as soon as possible.

Locke serves as the foundation’s vice president. The foundation’s president is Charles Grant, who is also running for re-election to the St. Helens City Council. Several messages for Grant were not returned.

Whether Locke’s use of the van for his own political purposes has compromised the foundation is unclear.

The IRS typically tries to work with the offenders to educate against future violations, according to information found on its Web site. In some cases the IRS will revoke tax-exempt status, or even levy an excise tax to cover the amount of money spent on the activity.

Less than half of such violations result in an examination, however, according to an IRS release in April.

Jennifer Hertel, a compliance specialist for the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division, said Locke’s use of the van does not constitute a campaign finance violation because the sign space is not an in-kind contribution with a dollar value.

To date, Locke has not filed any campaign expenses, a requirement that kicks in when a candidate spends $300 or more.



Copyright 2008 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • 503-226-6397

Today's Spotlight.......

St. Helens councilors accuse local resident of 'trying to take over government'
Councilors Doug Morten and Phillip Barlow have sued citizen Sally Gump for defamation

By Kelly Moyer

The South County Spotlight, Oct 22, 2008

St. Helens resident Sally Gump, pictured here in her kitchen baking cookies for her son, a freshman at Western Oregon University, says she can't believe two city councilors have sued her for defamation of character. The two sides will meet in Columbia County Circuit Court next Monday.

Sally Gump had read the most recent court filings in her lawsuit against two St. Helens city councilors. She’d even highlighted passages and made notes in the margins of the rebuttal her lawyer sent over.

But somehow Gump missed the most attention-grabbing sentence.

“I didn’t notice it until my friend called and said, ‘Did you see this? They say you’re trying to overthrow the government!’ I was shocked,” Gump says.

It was the very last sentence in the three-page report councilors Doug Morten and Philip Barlow filed in the ongoing legal battle that started with Gump’s efforts to recall the two councilors and progressed into a defamation suit against Gump, a lifelong Columbia County resident.

The two sides will meet in Columbia County Circuit Court at 3:45 p.m. Monday, Oct. 27. The two councilors filed suit against Gump this summer, saying she had made slanderous remarks against them and had printed libelous material in a flyer for the recall effort.

In the most recent rebuttal, filed earlier this week by the two councilors’ attorney, James Huffman, of the St. Helens law firm Huffman and O’Hanlon, Morten and Barlow accuse Gump, a homemaker and mother of a college freshman, of “participating as part of an organized effort to take over the government in St. Helens” to prove malicious intent.

“Once I read that sentence I thought, ‘Oh my God. Are they serious? Are you kidding me?’” Gump says. “But now I just want my day in court. I want to hear what their case is against me.”

The court records show that Morten and Barlow are accusing Gump of purposely trying to ruin their good character in public by printing and stating false accusations against them.

“Her statements are willfully false or, at best, they are published in reckless disregard of the truth,” states Morten in court documents. “All of this circumstantial evidence … shows (Gump) has actual malice to make false statements.”

But proving a defamation case against Gump may be a lot harder than the two councilors reckoned.

Jack Orchard, a Portland attorney who specializes in libel law, told The Spotlight in August that the two councilors have an uphill battle in their case against Gump.

“Generally speaking, public officials have a very high bar to prove libel,” Orchard, who serves on retainer with the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, told The Spotlight.

“They have to prove what was said about them was said in a knowingly false way or that the speaker or writer had a reckless disregard for the truth.”

Barlow and Morten have been advised by their attorney to not speak publicly about their case against Gump.

As for the St. Helens mother, Gump says she is taking things one day at a time. She’s still collecting signatures to get a recall of Morten and Barlow on the ballot and she’s trying to stay as involved as ever in city politics.

“I have a saying that I’ve put by my computer, that keeps me going,” Gump says. “It says ‘Act like a duck – look fine on top of the water but paddle like hell underneath.’”

Gump says she’ll keep paddling until her day in court.

“I just can’t believe they sued me for exercising my First Amendment rights,” Gump says. “I’m not a vindictive person. I don’t hate them. I just wanted to show them that they can’t strong-arm citizens.”

Of Morten and Barlow, Gump says she agrees with some of the work the councilors have done in St. Helens.

“They’ve done good work in some areas but they need to listen to the needs of all citizens, not just a handful,” Gump says.

Copyright 2008 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • 503-226-6397

Day 2 and counting .... bits and pieces

The time clock on signature gathering for the recall is winding down, so it's being replaced with a deadline that will stay static. Signed petitions must be submitted on Tuesday, October 28. To give us enough time to organize them, they must be in Sally's hands no later than noon this Saturday, October 25. Sally is no longer at the post office, but her numbers are listed in the column to the right, as is that of Jim who will bring the petition to you to sign, if you call him.

Did you know that

Doug Morten contributed $4,429 to his [mayoral] campaign and has spent most of the money on printing and advertising, including a $1,457 payment to Pro Graphyx and $170 to KOHI, the local talk radio program. [Spotlight, Oct 15]

He's running ads or something on KOHI? No wonder they seem so biased! Checking ORESTAR indicates that Doug is funding his own campaign and that we can expect HUGE ads in the Spotlight and Chronicle, today's editions.

I notice Keith's sign are no longer displayed on the Foundation's truck, although it's still parked in City right-of-way! Someone must have helped him see the light. Wonder if they'll get to the other councilors whose advertising is displayed against the law?

Day 3 and counting....

I sat in on part of the Parks Commission meeting today and was astounded to hear Doug Morten claim he hadn't requested any review of minutes, despite the fact that it was on the agenda. Even with reminders from three people in the meeting that he had requested it, he denied it and the subject was dropped. Go figure. Guess the minutes will go back to the Council now at their next meeting and be accepted as submitted, as they should have been when originally presented..

I also heard today that the subject of Keith's signs on the St. Helens Foundation truck may be some sort of ethics violation and that others are looking into it. And, I'm still wondering if there's any recourse against a candidate for mayor who lied on his voter pamphlet statement.

Like I said early on in this blog: these guys are just such easy targets.

More tomorrow on the court papers.

Day 4 and counting

You may have noticed the addition to the title of this blog. It's been my opinion for quite some time that Doug, Phil, Keith Locke and Charles Grant need to find new hobbies. They don't deserve the City Councilor moniker, much less the title of Commissioner of anything.

When this recall began I wavered as to whether or not to file against all four of them. Full recall statements were researched and written for all of them, but I finally decided to focus on the two who were most harmful and that the demise of the other two would come naturally by election.

I know I want Doug & Phil recalled, and I know who I would like to see win the seats now occupied by Keith and (sometimes) Charles: Steve Blanchard and Pat Martyn.

I'd really like to work with people who didn't think they were above the rest of the citizens of St. Helens. Keith and Charles have bad track records for abuse of City rules, specifically regarding events sponsored by the St. Helens Foundation (NOT an arm of the City, even if they would have you believe so).

They seem quite capable of thinking up event ideas and getting beautiful posters made, but more often than not, they completely disregard the City's requirements for holding the events. Requirements that I'm required to hold any and all other people to: reserving space, filing a completed application, paying fees, getting emergency response signatures, obtaining liquor licenses, notifying businesses affected by street closures and filing a street closure application, and, lastly, obtaining proof of insurance that protects the City against liability for the event.

This is not an exaggeration. They seem completely unable to do these simple things required of anyone who holds an event on City property; they behave as if it is their RIGHT to disregard the rules. I can start the paperwork for them, remind them, remind them, and remind them, and still find myself 24 hours out without being able to issue a permit. It doesn't stop them, however. The events go on as planned. Just not with City approval.

This might not seem like such a big deal, but not only does it leave the City and others liable, it is also indicative of the way they approach their work. I've heard Keith say, "Let the City pay for it," or "The City can pay for it." They take things like this before City Council and four-to-one agree that Keith can just disregard the rules . . . because? Well, because, I suppose, he is a city councilman. (Doesn't anyone besides me wonder at the ethics of two City Councilmen who also run the St. Helens Foundation, and come before the Council to solicit funding for the Foundation??)

I've seen Charles late to meetings, skip meetings to which he is assigned, miss meetings specifically scheduled around him, bring his three-year-old daughter to meetings, and openly and frequently admit that he hasn't read the materials provided to him prior to the Council work sessions and meetings, and isn't prepared to discuss a topic or vote on it. Exactly why did we elect this man?

Sadly, the latter does not just apply to Charles. Doug Morten is currently on a rip about the Parks Commission minutes. Until a couple of months ago, I took and transcribed those minutes, then submitted a draft to the commission to review and approve, before sending them along to the full council to accept. Month after month the minutes were approved as submitted, with a minor correction now and then.

Doug sat in those meetings. He got the minutes in advance just as the commissioners did. I don't think he ever read them, though, because now as they've made their way to the City Council to accept (not approve, that's the job of the Parks Commission), he's suddenly unwilling to let the Council accept them as written and approved. They apparently don't please him. He feels he's been misrepresented. I have to assume he didn't read any of them prior to the Parks Commission meetings where they were approved, and, assume, as well, that he hasn't bothered to read any of the Parks minutes for the nearly two years I've been taking them and he's been assigned to that commission.(Does he read minutes of any of the commissions if he doesn't read those of the commission upon which he sits?)

Now, after he's discovered that I'm part of this vast conspiracy of people organized to take over the City of St. Helens, now he finds the minutes unacceptable? How convenient.

I understand he intends to bring them up at the next Parks meeting (tomorrow) and, I guess, ask the Parks Commission to reopen discussion on them, change them to his liking and resubmit them.

Please. Doug, if you don't read them (and you're the Parks Commissioner) what makes you think anyone else does? I wouldn't expect that Charles does, or Keith, so why does it matter. Or, is this one of those situations that is causing you grievous harm, destroying your career, ravaging your reputation, and cause for a defamation/libel suit?

I don't think election day or recall petition filing day can come soon enough. Because, I've had enough. Hope the rest of you have, as well.

Day 5 and counting....councilors words from court papers

Ah, where to begin! Such a wealth of fun I've not seen before in one place!

The Councilors filed their lawsuits against Sally on August 1. Through attorney Mike Sheehan, Sally's Motion to Strike was filed on August 25. From then until October 10 it appears the councilors were busy at work with their Mr. Huffman, coming up with their responses to Sally and Mike's request to drop the suit. The papers are now all public records, so I'm anxious to share some of the highlights/"lowlights" with you.The material quoted verbatim is set off below.

The evidence presented clearly shows the statements made by the defendant are false. . . . The evidence also clearly shows that the statements are defamatory. . . . A writing will be considered defamatory if, construing the matter as a whole and measuring the effect of the words on the "average lay reader," it tends to (1) bring a person into public hatred, contempt or ridicule; (2) cause him to be shunned or avoided; or (3) injure him in his business or occupation. [McCall v Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co.]

Pardon me, but this is rich. I researched and wrote the statements and I have the proof to back them up; how can they be defamatory? I am truly humbled that my words are so powerful as to do any or all of the damage they claim! (Mind you, I'm on only the second or third page of about 50 pages of this BS. This filing could give me weeks of ranting and raving material!)

And, I do so love lawyer talk:

The First Amendment does not inoculate all opinions against the ravages of defamation suits. A statement couched as an opinion that presents or implies the existence of facts which are capable of being proven true or false can be actionable....A defamatory communication may consist of a statement in the form of an opinion, but a statement of this nature is actionable only if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.

Uh, ok. But, let's move on. Here, from Doug's personal declaration (even though the paperwork says Phillip Barlow v Sally Gump, it begins with "Declaration of Douglas Morten" so I will assume it is actually Doug's statement):

The claims by Sally Gump about the amount of increase in councilor compensation is [sic] false. The City Council adopted a temporary pay incentive package that was limited to a 6 month trial period. After the six month period expired, the council did not extend it and it is now expired. It was not in effect on August 1, 2008.

This statement is blantantly false. I quote from the Spotlight ["They won't get their allowances: Councilors reject stipends" by Tom Henderson, The South County Spotlight, Aug 19, 2008]

Councilors started receiving the stipend six months ago on a trial basis. With the trial period over, councilors voted Aug. 13 to stop taking the money.

Councilors Phillip Barlow and Keith Locke voted against discontinuing the stipend.

Councilor Doug Morton said the stipend was not created to be permanent and was started solely as a six-month experiment. However, City Administrator Chad Olsen said there was no language in the original resolution that confined the stipend to a six-month trial.

This vote rescinded only the $75 meeting stipend, not the entire "incentive package, the rest of which they are still receiving. And, it's likely that the recall statements, citizen complaints,and the upcoming election were the reasons behind the council's decision to rescind the meeting stipend portion of the package when they did. The timing is all just too convenient. (Note, also, who voted not to rescind it: the only two who have been filing for it.)

And, one of my favorites from both Phil and Doug's statements:

There is evidence showing that she [Sally] is participating as part of an organized effort to take over the government in St. Helens, and this motive is malicious.

Ok, Doug, bring it--I'm curious what proof you have that Sally or anyone else is attempting to "take over the government in St. Helens" except maybe you and Phil and Keith. Word on the streets is that you are out offering your supposedly soon-to-be-available council seat to people. People like Jim Bach, who worships you; Jim Bach, whose business you'd love to see closed down.

Now, that's malicious.

Councilor and the truck, first response

That truck was bought for the foundation, actually, for the concerts. Keith (Locke) found it down south and sent Caleo Sallee to get it. It broke down on the way here and it had to be fixed. Then Keith went after it. All in all, it was Keith's pet project. [The 13 Nights] committee got told about it after he spent money to get it and then wanted to be reimbursed for it. Of course, [they] weren't happy with that. And this wasn't the first thing that he bought without the committee's o.k. He bought most of the sound equipment that way too. He went onto Ebay and got it there and most of it is crap. He had no idea about sound systems and was unwilling to even listen to others about the cost. As normal, he does what he wants, then the committee is forced to say "yes". Oh, the truck is suppose to sit at the police station for safe keeping. All the sound equipment is stored in it or maybe Keith took it into his house to keep it from getting condensation. There's a question to be answered!

As for the mower...........about three years ago, a lady named Tammy Doddel, had a book on the whole city government. She came to a meeting and confronted Keith about the mower. He laughed about it and said it was no big deal. He volunteers his time and people need to know how much that means. So, him having the mower at his house is no big deal and it only helps him to be able to do his job.

Day 8 and counting: Whose money is it anyway?

Interestingly enough, I heard from two different people today that one of the St. Helens City Councilors running for office this election has a city owned vehicle (truck) sitting on city right of way, in front of his house, that sports not one but two signs promoting him for re-election.

I don't know if this is true, but both people who told me have reason to know. So, if anyone has the time to follow the councilors' money (for it surely isn't ours these days, nor are they accountable to citizens as to how it is spent, apparently), I'd love to know if this is true.

I think the way it works is this: the City supported the St. Helens Foundation with money used to purchase (among other things, I'm sure) the truck in question. It is apparently used to haul city-purchased equipment for 13 Nights on the River. The equipment is used for Foundation events, not City events, but that isn't the problem, IF the City actually gave the money to the Foundation to use as it wished.

Questionable is that it is allowed to park on city right of way and carry political signs. Who drives the vehicle besides the one particular councilor? And, is it true that the City is expected to pay for all repairs to a vehicle that purportedly belongs to the Foundation? I'd like to know who the truck is registered to, who pays for its use, who has access to it, why it is allowed to park illegally, and how it is the Foundation or the City deem it appropriate to advertise for that councilior?

Also brought to my attention today by one of these two people, was the fact that a City-owned mower is permanently parked at this same councilor's house. Reason being, I assume, because he mows Sand Island. This volunteer (I hope) service to the community is commendable. But, who has access to the mower, is it used by the City in any other way? Why is it parked in his yard?

This is the same councilor whose been reported to say, frequently, "let the City pay for it" or "the City will pay for it."

It may not be MY money--I don't live there--but I'm fairly certain it isn't HIS money, either.

Day 9 and counting: Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to court we go!

The court date is definite:
Monday, October 27th, 3:45 to 5pm
in County Courthouse Room 351,
in front of Judge Reed

From Sally's update today:

[Paperwork filed with the court says] Morton and Barlow are both having 'issues' with us.

Morton claims that we haven't fixed the booklet concerning the pay increase. Remember........they removed the stipend and we needed to tell everyone that they did that. He also feels that we are wrong with the saying "in pursuit of his own agenda". Morton has no agenda! He never has had an agenda!

Barlow claims he has no interest in the BMX track. He did have interest before he was a city councilor but not after. Hmmmm.......isn't he on the bicycle friendly committee and he drives around in a big van with bike stuff on it. He does ride a bike, works at the bike shop, but has no interest.

On another note.........[petition signer] came by and said Morten was at her door the other day. She invited him in and discussed city budget stuff, etc. Her opinion.........what an idiot! He didn't have any good answers. Another fellow today said that he just talked to Morten and wasn't impressed. Maybe [he] is shooting himself in the foot.

I will share as much information as possible regarding the paperwork that has been filed and forwarded to Sally as soon as I confirm how much can legally be posted here.

In the meantime, please get your petitions to Sally and PLEASE plan to be in court. We need the support! THANKS!