"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!

Day 10 and counting: Calling all petitions!

Just a quick reminder for those of you with petitions to get them to Sally (or me) as soon as possible. There still time to fill an extra petition or two (the more the merrier!), just don't miss the deadline for getting them in to be counted: Friday, October 24. We file on Tuesday, October 28th! Yahoo!!

And, don't forget that we plan to be in court with Sally on October 27th. We'll keep you informed here as to time and place.

DAY 11: Hit the streets!

In recent days I've realized that we're not seeing or hearing much from the two recall councilors. Even Doug, I realize, is playing it pretty low key. They stopped giving interviews, stopped bad mouthing Sally, and are even rarely seen around City Hall. Unfortunately, that tends to give me a false sense of calm.

Think about it. The last real news we heard about them was that they wanted the suit against Sally scheduled for a late November court date. Well, of course, why would they want it to happen anywhere near the last date for gathering recall signatures or voting in the November 4 election? That made me stop and think.

I've been busy lately and without them in my face, aggravating the H out of me, I've tended to shuffle them off to Buffalo, so to speak. Bad move. Bad move. It should have been an automatic red flag to me if I wasn't hearing about them--whining over the lawsuit, saying stupid things in meetings, telling the press how upset they are that Sally is trying to ruin their careers. It should have and I'm embarrassed that the little red flag didn't hit me a lot sooner.

And, then I read an article in the Oregonian today that talked about Obama winning the campaign neighborhood by neighborhood, and that thought has stuck with me all morning. I can't explain why we haven't heard much from Phil; maybe someone finally wised him up to what a bad impression he was making getting bogged down and whining about the recall. I really don't know.

But, I do know where to find the recently elusive Doug Morten. He's out going door to door to shake hands and smile at voters. He's attending, speaking at and schmoozing at meetings. He's making promises and commiserating with people. Voters. House by house, street by street, and neighborhood by neighborhood. He's got enough sense (although it didn't show itself in his quick and questionable response to notice of the recall) to know that he needs to stay low in public arenas, but to be visible on a one-to-one basis.

Doug Morten intends to win this election neighborhood by neighborhood. And, if you think he doesn't or he can't possibly, then it's time for a reality check. He won last time by meeting and greeting and he thinks he can do it again.

And, if we let him, who knows, maybe he could. He thinks the recall is a joke and he thinks he's a shoo-in for mayor. He won't say so if you ask him, but watch him in meetings, laid back against his chair, leg crossed across his lap, and smiling--even as he offers barely disguised snipes at the mayor every chance he gets. He's not about getting along (like Charles Grant likes to think, or at least likes to say) and he's not about getting the City's business done, not these days.

Lately he's all about laying low--making no public gaffes--appearing conciliatory, helpful, and concerned, and a little perplexed at how things are just not getting done under current leadership. He'll throw up his hands in disgust, add a little jab here and there, and in his condescending way, let you know that's he's trying but despite his best efforts, golly, St. Helens is doomed with his opponent in office. In fact, doggonit, we just might collapse without Doug's leadership.

Yeah, well. Not. I don't trust the man. And, while he may not get recalled (who knows what the voters will do), I'm going to make every effort that I personally can to make sure that at least he doesn't gain control of the City Council in the November 4 election. And, the way he views the City's charter, that's exactly what he and his cohorts will do if he is elected.

I've got my precinct list and I'm about a third of the way through it, talking to people and explaining who I am and why I am concerned for the City's future. I tell them, as a wise woman told me, I want the St. Helens City Council to lead the City, not own it. Leadership, not ownership. I ask for their vote for Randy Peterson.

If this election is to be won by talking to every person in this town, then that is exactly how we need to do it. Face face, street by street, and neighborhood by neighborhood.

I'm on my way out the door to hit another 50 houses or so, and I'll keep at it until midnight on November 3, if I have to. I don't think someone has the right to complain about the results of an election if they didn't do all they could legally do to influence the outcome. The time is always right to do what's right. (See the top of this page.)

Ok, so I'm still lost.

Just got a great comment on an old post....guess someone has just discovered the blog!

Referring to my post on 8-21-08, the comment says:

Anonymous said...

Does the Title "Estate Trust" mean anything to you. I rest my case.

You may want to open the door to the single wide long enough to step into the library and look it up!.

A helpful hint; Before you start the 12 step program, you may want to un-hinge your head from the "Powers that be in Columbia County's" Behind. You are so predictable.

Have a nice day.

October 9, 2008 8:47 AM

My problem here is still the same. I can read and I can define estate trust. But, no it doesn't mean a heck of a lot to me in regards to the recall or the election, so if ANONYMOUS comes by again and wants to comment, fill me in will ya?

A bit of factual information for those of us who can't read between the lines, would be loads more helpful than snarky comment.

I get that you think I'm stupid; so fill me in on what you know that you think I should. And as to the location of my head, it's not where you think it is, trust me.

Day 15 and counting: How Jim Adams really feels

Councilor Morten speaks of this collaborative decision making process that these men have imposed on the citizens of St. Helens as if it were a thing of beauty and effectiveness, and a hallmark of forward progress in municipal government. I don’t think so, Doug. History … and statistical reality … clearly demonstrate that the commission form of government was an experiment that was tried, and failed, nearly 100 years ago! There were never more than about 500 cities in the nation that tried to adopt it, and since the council-manager system was proposed, and its advantages began to be understood by civic leaders (about 1915), the prevailing trend among municipal governments has been overwhelmingly away from the commission form and toward the council-manager form.

According to the Municipal Year Book for 2008, there are currently 143 cities in this country (a whopping 2%) that still try to make this antiquated form of government work. Portland is the only large city in the nation that still clings to it. And the only city – of any size – in the state of Oregon. It doesn’t work! You have only to look at what is happening in Portland at the present time to see a graphic demonstration of the fundamental flaw in collaborative leadership. They are about to lose the best Police Chief that city has had in many years because of an irresolvable conflict of managerial styles between an appointed department head who is highly skilled and successful, and an elected amateur commissioner who insists on imposing his will in the direction of micromanaging her every move.

The Junto Society (http://www.juntosociety.com/government/municipal.htm), which is sort of a “wiki” forum on American philosophy, has this to say about the down side of “collaborative leadership” in the commission form of government.

“To a significant extent the commission plan served as a precursor to the popular council-manager form of city government. Richard S. Childs, often called the father of the city manager plan, worked through the Short Ballot Organization and the National Municipal League to make the manager plan rather than the commission plan the progressive idea of choice for business-minded reformers. Childs and others pointed out that the specific departmental interests of commissioners often caused internal squabbling and that the absence of a chief executive could result in a lack of leadership. Manager charters, many argued, could retain the beneficial aspects of the Galveston-Des Moines system, such as the short ballot, at-large voting, nonpartisanship, the merit system, and direct democracy, but could replace leaderless bickering with businesslike management in the corporate model.”

But the real fundamental flaw of the commission form of government is that it does away with the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of city government. That should mean something to you. It is the very heart of the genius of our nation’s Constitution. The Legislative branch (congress) and the Executive branch (president) serve as checks on each other’s abuse of authority, and the Judicial branch acts as a watchdog over that necessary tension and conflict. In city government, the legislative branch is the Council. The executive branch can be either the Mayor or the Manager or Administrator, depending on how those roles are defined. Whoever has the authority for administering the daily activities of the city. Where the commission form of government fails is that it lets both the legislative and the executive powers fall into the hands of the same body of men, and it lends itself far too easily to the very abuse of power that we see taking place in our own City Hall at the present time.

The only protection against that danger is a strongly-defined charter! Does it bother you just a little bit that two freshman councilors at the very beginning of their term would be able to come in and put a stop to this needed reform, which was well underway, without so much as a by-your-leave from the voting public? And then, in the same breath, to redefine the very nature of your existing government into a form that is so conveniently susceptible to the concentration of power into their own hands! Will you please do one thing for me? (For yourselves, really!) Go to the city’s web site (http://www.ci.st-helens.or.us/), click on agendas and minutes, find the minutes for the Joint Meeting between the Council and the Charter Review Committee on October 11, 2007. Just click on the link shown as 10-11-07 JM in the 2007 column. That was the last meeting between the Council and the Charter Review Committee, where the Council received their recommendation … and promptly tabled the issue. Two glaring facts will become evident as you read down through those notes.

First, the weakness of the present charter was clearly understood by everyone gathered in the room as that discussion unfolded.

Daley: “I’m confused. If the Council wants to change the commissioner style of government,
doesn’t it have to be changed in the charter.”

Barlow: “No. We have every right to appoint any officer. We could say, ‘Skip, you’re in charge of everything today.’ We have every right to do that. We have a right as a majority to say we are going to be a commission form of government. We have that right under that charter.”

Peterson: “The old charter is vague enough that it gives the Council power to decide how they are going to do it.”

Second was Barlow’s insistence that it really wasn’t necessary to bother the voters and go to the expense of updating the present charter, since the proposed changes were so trifling??

I love Skip Baker’s response to that mindset.

Baker: “The reason for the Charter change is to mortalize, to create something the Council can’t
change on their whims, every time it changes its power structure. That’s the reason for it.”

If the charter is so broken that someone can come in and restructure the city government in any direction that serves their narrow purpose, shouldn’t a conscientious Council be concerned with fixing it, and in letting the electorate of the city have input into that process? Shouldn’t you have the right to decide whether you are governed by dedicated public servants or self-serving, willful politicians?

Is it not pretty clear that these men do not want to fix a problem that is an incredible windfall to their own political platforms? They want to -- and fully intend to -- exploit it for all it’s worth, and they’re doing a very good job of it, thank you very much. I can’t help but feel like I’m watching a bad “B” western, where the town boss gathers enough hired guns to intimidate the people into accepting his unwelcome authority … simply because they are afraid of the consequences of challenging him. I believe the people of this community are smarter than that. And I believe you are better than that. But I would remind you that there isn’t going to be an Audie Murphy, or a Jimmy Stewart, or a John Wayne riding into town to challenge the authority of this band that has taken your city government out of your hands … so far without much of a protest from the population at large. The lesson of every “town boss” western I can remember seeing is that it requires the combined courage of the common people of the community to break the hold of those who by arrogance and intimidation have put themselves forward as being in charge … just because they can. The truth still remains … they can’t … unless you let them!

Getting back to the movie analogy, a handful of hired guns may be more than a match for a similar handful of properly appointed leaders if they are inexperienced “gunfighters.” But if the whole community is willing to stand up … if it is only with pitchforks and broomsticks … they can win this kind of a fight! For those of you who fear for your jobs, I hope you know they can’t fire you all! But what they can do – if you let them – is make the job you are trying to protect so unpleasant and burdensome that you’re not going to want to work there anyway a year or two down the line.

Frankly, we’re running out of time here. I really believe if we were able to get these recall measures on the ballot, they would have a good chance of passing. People are beginning to get wise to the fact that we have a serious leadership crisis in all four city council posts right now. Of course, we get to vote on Locke and Grant this year anyway, without a recall. And I hope you understand they are just as much a part of this problem as Morten and Barlow … and in my opinion all four have forfeited their public trust beyond remedy. But unless significant numbers of you come forward very soon – not only to sign the petitions, but to actively circulate petitions yourselves among your friends and neighbors – we likely will not have the full privilege of saying an emphatic NO to the nightmare of this unauthorized experiment in “collaborative leadership” come November.

Day 16 and counting down: How an unnamed citizen really feels

Sally Gump and Kim Bauer are two very brave women. They have worked hard to help educate the citizens of this community as to what is really going on with our city council. They have done this in spite of the personal expenses they have incurred, and the attacks on their characters by Barlow, Morten, and others. They are exceptional citizens and we should be thankful that they had the guts to bring their issues to the public.

I have personally attended several council meetings, and encourage others to do the same. It doesn't take long to see and hear what these councilors deem as important. They may be sage enough to recruit another councilor to champion their own need, such as the BMX track, which supports the Barlow-owned bike shop, that is being pushed forward by councilor Morten. I wish more people could have attended the city council meeting a while back when Barlow verbally attacked Mayor Peterson regarding a telephone conversation they had prior to Barlow talking with the local media, when writing an article on the council. After listening to Barlow's tirade, Peterson very calmly replied that he recalled their conversation differently. Barlow's answer was, "Well, I WAS heavily medicated at the time". Personally, I don't think media interviews should be granted by council members when they are heavily medicated. Makes me wonder what else he does while in this "medicated" state. Maybe that explains some things after all! It certainly raises a question of good judgment on his part. And speaking of good judgment, perhaps Barlow and Morten, when faced with the recall effort, would have made a better judgment call to spend their money on a public relations firm to handle the recall, rather than spending their money on a lawsuit and lawyers. Isn't that part of the problem with our country today, everyone just a little too eager to sue for whatever silly reason they come up with? Is this a sign of how they handle conflict or situations that are uncomfortable to them? It makes one wonder. And I too have seen and heard Morten's condescending talk. He is a master at telling people what they want to hear. It doesn't matter if it is the opposite of what he told someone else the day before. The thought of him becoming mayor of this city literally keeps me awake at night.

In closing, I applaud the efforts of Sally and Kim. Whether you agree with the recall or not, you should acknowledge these women for their efforts in trying to keep the citizens of St. Helens informed and knowledgeable. And if you have your doubts, please attend one of the upcoming council meetings. They are definitely an eye-opener!

Day 17 and counting down: How Sally Really Feels

I like to put some thought into what I say sometimes. So, after looking at the blog and seeing what was written, I started pondering.

The pondering stopped today after a certain fellow told me that he was sick of this Kim Bauer person and was going to get her fired. He doesn't believe she should work for the city. How dare she wear a red recall button to work! She's wearing that and basically telling her bosses that they need to go.

Well, guess what?! When did freedom of speech get thrown out? When did the constitution go down the drain? It's bad enough that we have lost so many freedoms due to people not using common sense. The question is simple: the people who work at city hall can not have any voice whatsoever? Is that what you are saying? They can only listen to "their bosses" and be puppets?

I've sat at the post office for eight weeks and have talked to so many nice people. Then we have one guy who believes that the councilmen are doing a wonderful job. I've seen him kiss up to them. Little does he know how much they want to see his business gone and they take over his building. And he has the guts to say that he's going to see Kim Bauer fired.

And then take Barlow and Morten. They both wave to me when they drive by the post office. I really don't dislike them as humans. I somewhat pity them. I find it sad that they do not listen to people but listen to what they want to hear. Our election coming up is full of politicians who talk, talk, talk. They do not seem to have respect, morals, integrity, or common sense. They have lots of money and I don't. But I have time........time to start at city level. Time to tell people to get involved somewhere, anywhere. Just don't sit there.......get up, speak up.

I know many people are scared to say anything since I'm getting sued. Hey, if I lose...........Barlow gets my parakeet and Morten can have the lizard. But if I win, what happens then????

So far the court date is set for October 27th from 3:45pm to 5 pm. Anyone wanting to see what happens, please show up. I need the support.

Sally

Final weeks, time for some fun

I've been rereading the reasons for recall that we gave so much thought to, put so much effort into. We (and there were several of us who made comments, changed and added things before these became final) wanted to be clear, concise, and factual -- above all, factual. And, we wanted to touch nerves in people, get people to question what they wanted from the council and what they were getting. Make them more aware of what's happening here.

In rereading those statements, I'm still convinced we did a pretty good job of spelling it all out. There were many more reasons and issues that could have been discussed, but ultimately they had to be narrowed down to fit the word limit. There were also several personal issues, first-hand experiences with the councilors and much general ill will toward them that had to be voiced and then omitted. They didn't belong in this kind of piece, and while each of them may have been personally valid, they weren't the issues we felt most affected the majority of people.

So, when it came to the end, we were agreed that the current financial status and future of the City and the abuse of power these councilors displayed concerned us most. They want ownership of the City. Their pet projects, their money, their commissions, their vision, their charter. It was all about them. And, not much has changed in the way they go about the City's business since this recall and this blog started in August.

As we enter the final days of gathering signatures and trying to expose the things that this council is party to, I'm prompted to remind people of the things that brought us to the point of filing a recall against Doug Morten and Phil Barlow, and I'll continue to do that.

But, for each of us involved in this, and for many others who've signed petitions, attended meetings, and talked to people about the issues, the reasons for our support of this recall might also include personal encounters, personal feelings, one of those things we left out of the recall statements. We've kept this blog above board and factual as much as possible to this point, and it's not always been easy.

So, for the next couple of weeks, let's talk about the things that didn't make it to the recall statements as well as the real issues. Maybe the thing most on your mind is the audacity of someone to name themselves commissioner of public works without one iota of experience, or get paid $75 for attending a yacht club meeting. Or maybe one of your personal reasons is that you don't like Phil because his family steals apples from your tree (yes, we really heard this one!) or maybe you just can't stand Doug's arm around you when he talks to you. I don't care and neither will anyone else. As long as we keep it clean and not mean-spirited. And, as long as we clearly identify opinion, own it, don't state it as fact.

So, let's hear from you--email me at kcbauer@q.com. Tell us what's on your mind about Doug and Phil. I'll post and share whatever you are willing to share and with or without your name, as you wish. Give us your personal reasons for recalling Phil and Doug, even if they aren't recall-statement worthy!

I'll start.

For me, it's the huge overload of ego. (There are many more logical reasons, but this is a chance to let loose, too, remember?) Up front, this is just my opinion, based on what I see and hear at City Hall every day.

I work with Doug enough to see that what he says and what he does are often very different things. I've seen and heard him say one thing to one commission, another to another commission, another to staff, and yet another to the city council--all on the same topic. He fits his words and his response to the audience. He has an innate ability to realize what you want to hear and make sure he's the one saying it. I find Doug smarmy, patronizing, disingenuous, and egotistical. I want to ask him to be sincere.

As to Phil, I always think of Jack Nicholson telling Tom Cruise, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" He expends way to much energy asking for other's opinions and approval and then worrying them to death. His primary concern is how he feels, and how he is perceived, yet he throws tantrums in meetings, argues, interrupts, and is belligerent; whines that Sally is picking on him and trying to ruin his career; and is hurt because he's not included in things. He could write a textbook on how not to behave in public office. For instance, presenting the ignorant and insensitive idea during during a public meeting that even though the city charter says you have to be a property owner in the city to hold a seat on council, the reference was probably put in there to keep black people from running for office back in slave days and doesn't apply to him! I find Phil grating, childish, irrational, and yup, egotistical. I want to ask him to grow up.

I could probably express that all more clearly, but this one is off the cuff; it's just what I feel about them. And, for me, it's enough.

I look forward to hearing from you. And, to seeing those 1200 signatures on the petitions! Thanks for carrying on with the good fight.

Sally Gump goes to court

Word is that a date may be set shortly for the SLAPP suit against Sally Gump. I hear the "irreparably harmed" councilors were hoping for a late November date but that the date may in fact be set a bit earlier. Too bad I'm not setting it; I'd aim for October 21 (a week before the recall petitions are submitted) just to give them one last chance to squirm very publicly over their rash decision to sue Sally. Might be worth a few more signatures! I'll post a definite date as soon as I hear that it's been finalized.

In the meantime, think about what you will be doing when Sally is in court with the two of them. Where will you be?

I'll be right there with her and hope you will be, too. Let them have their day in court. It is their right. But, it's Sally's day in court, too, and she deserves our support. I say we pack the court room and be silent witness to the silliness!

Wonder how many bodies the court room holds. If we make enough noise about it when we hear the date, maybe they'll have to take reservations. Wouldn't that be fun?