HinesSight

Children's Room at Salem Public Library held hostage to police facility

This should be a crime: holding remodeling of the Salem Public Library's Children's Room hostage to a crazy plan to convert the entire library into a police facility while putting the library... somewhere else.

Or maybe City officals will conclude Salem just doesn't need a central library. 

Crime or not, it's happening. 

City Manager Linda Norris and her co-conspirators at City Hall have told the library administrator that the planned $250,000 worth of renovations to the Children's Room -- paid for from privately-raised funds -- has to be put on hold pending the outcome of City Council deliberations about whether to turn the Salem Public Library into a police facility.

Yesterday I talked with a woman who is a member of library and police advisory committees. She also is a mother of two young children. She's aghast at what City officials are doing. More: really, really angry. 

As she should be. 

I was told that currently it is common for 100 people to take part in the Storytime sessions at the current overcrowded Children's Room. Elementary school field trips to the library can only happen on one day, when the regular Storytime isn't happening in the Children's Room.

The remodeling, which was all ready to go before City Manager Norris put up a stop sign, would add another Storytime room -- thereby allowing school field trips to come on any day of the week.

This person felt that City officials are trying to kill Storytime by leaving the Children's Room so crowded with 80, 90, or even 100 people in the room, that children and parents won't come back. Then City staff can say, "Look, fewer people are using the library; so let's convert the Children's Room into holding cells."

Outrageous. A word that is being used increasingly often to describe City Hall goings-on. For sure, not just by me. 

Think about it: the City of Salem has never had a public hearing of any sort about the plan to convert the Salem Public Library into a police facility. I reported on this nine days ago, but I'm pretty sure the Statesman Journal, our so-called "paper of record" hasn't done a story on the notion so far.

So once again, secretive back-room deal making is the modus operandi for Mayor Peterson, City Manager Norris, and the City Council. But this is an especially outrageous outrage.

Geez... stopping renovations to the Children's Room from going forward because it would look bad if these much-needed improvements are ripped out when the entire Salem Public Library is evicted from its building and forced to move elsewhere -- heartless.

Plus, I was told that City officials have been regularly raiding the library budget to pay for other city services. 

This is tragic.

But just as with the needless U.S. Bank tree killings, there is a certain tragicomic feel to what the City of Salem is doing this time. Adding the "comic" doesn't make the outrageous actions of Norris, Peterson, et. al. any less so. It just illustrates how farcical this new episode in "City Officials Gone Wild" is. 

See my post, "Salem's US Bank tree cutting needs to be featured on The Daily Show."

Maybe it makes sense to have a two-subject Daily Show special report now, the US Bank tree cutting and the Children's Room into holding cells (or whatever) proposal. 

I could see a bunch of children sitting on the floor, enjoying Storytime. Then a SWAT team bursts in, body armor on, brandishing batons. "Exit the room! Hands up!" they yell at the startled children, parents, and library staff. "The library is now a police facility, per order of the Salem City Council!"

The kids are escorted out; a tough-guy construction crew marches in. They start cutting up the Storytime posters, shelves, and books with chainsaws, demolishing the walls with sledgehammers. The pieces of a jail cell start to be assembled in what used to be the Children's Room.

Funny? Yeah, sure could be. However, this is no joke. It really is what City officials are seriously considering, albeit in a less dramatic fashion than my Daily Show bit.

Tell them, no way. I've been told that Councilor Bednarz is especially big on converting the library into a police facility. You might want to give him an especially large piece of your mind.
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]

Let the Children's Room remodeling go forward. Storytime shouldn't be held hostage to a crazy idea of making the Salem Public Library into a police facility that easily could be built elsewhere for much less money.

This is no joke. The City is really, truly set on a course where the library could be converted into a police facility. Here's what city staffer Courtney Knox Busch said in an email message recently:

May 27, 2014 Update: Police Facility, Civic Center Seismic

City Council held a Work Session on May 21, 2014 to discuss the need for a new Police facility and seismic strengthening of the Civic Center buildings, including the Main Branch of the Salem Public Library. 

The Work Session gave Council an opportunity to talk to one another and staff a better understanding of information Council would like to see to inform decisions for next steps.  While no decisions can be made in a work session setting, several Councilors raised ideas for possible locations for a new Police Facility, including City-owned facilities like the Library.  To further explore this possibility, Council requested information concerning:

1)  whether the Library could be reconfigured to meet the Police Department’s needs and at what cost and

2)  what City-owned properties are available (e.g. Marion Parkade, leased properties downtown, Windows to the West) that might work for a new Police or Library facility.

Staff anticipates returning to Council in late June with a report on what it would take (staff time, schedule and cost) to provide the requested information.  At that point, Council will review the schedule and determine if the costs are an appropriate investment.

You are receiving this email because you've indicated an interest in this topic.  If you no longer wish to receive these email updates, please email [email protected] to be removed from the list.

Thank you.

Courtney

Statesman Journal clueless about unneeded Third Bridge

Today the Salem Statesman Journal editorial page did what it does best: parrot Chamber of Commerce and City of Salem talking points without bothering about the facts of an important policy decision.

Here's what editorial page editor Dick Hughes, most likely, said about the bridge in a Winners and Losers piece.

LOSER: Continued opposition to a "third bridge" in Salem. Another Willamette River bridge is decades overdue to help connect businesses and commuters in Polk, Yamhill and other rural counties with Interstate 5. If Salem wants to improve the livability of downtown, it has to get heavy trucks and other drive-through traffic out of the city center.

Opponents continued their circular arguments at Tuesday's Salem City Council meeting: Don't plan for a bridge until the money is available to build it.

Environmental studies and designs must be conducted in order to know the cost and to determine what federal and state financing is available.

It's disappointing that some opponents have never talked with city staff or other officials involved to get accurate information on how the bridge would affect their neighborhood.

Pleasingly, the No 3rd Bridge folks easily demolished the simplistic and inaccurate Statesman Journal editorializing via a pithy comment. So did a couple of other folks. I added a comment of my own.

NO 3rd Bridge

The SJ's branding reasoned opposition to the 3rd Bridge as a "loser" demands a rebuttal ... 

"If Salem wants to improve the livability of downtown, it has to get heavy trucks and other drive-through traffic out of the city center."

The adopted "Purpose and Need" statement for the 3rd Bridge indicates that trucks make up only 4% of the traffic on the existing bridges. That's hardly a threat to the livability of downtown. Our downtown is threatened by any plan to build a bypass that would divert traffic away from downtown which, in the Salem Comprehensive Plan, is designated as the commercial center of Salem.

"Opponents continued their circular arguments at Tuesday's Salem City Council meeting: Don't plan for a bridge until the money is available to build it."

Look up the definition of "circular argument." This is not one. The State of Oregon wasted $200 million on planning for the Columbia River Crossing in Portland before there was a viable funding plan in place. The Salem City Council and other local governments are making the same mistake by spending millions to plan the Salem River Crossing before there is a viable funding plan in place. It is clear that little or no state and federal money will be available for this project. Until there is an indication that Salem residents would be willing to raise their property taxes or pay tolls to use the Marion and Center Street bridges to pay for a 3rd Bridge, we need to quit wasting millions to plan it.

"Environmental studies and designs must be conducted in order to know the cost and to determine what federal and state financing is available."

The official ODOT FAQ says this about funding: "Will the state and federal government pay for this project? No. The federal government will likely pay for only a portion of the project and the state government may not pay for any of it. A significant amount of local funds will be needed to make up the difference." It is a myth that the cost of a 3rd Bridge will not have to be borne by Salem taxpayers at a cost of hundreds of dollars a year for the average resident. Your comment helps perpetuate that myth.

"It's disappointing that some opponents have never talked with city staff or other officials involved to get accurate information on how the bridge would affect their neighborhood."

Where do you get your information? From Councilor Tesler? NO 3rd Bridge is in frequent communication with both ODOT and City staff about the 3rd Bridge. You should check the facts before you repeat hearsay.

Along these lines, why has the SJ Editorial Board never sat down with the leaders of NO 3rd Bridge to hear our arguments about why we should not be planning a 3rd Bridge. Don't you have a responsibility to do that before branding us as "losers."

 

Cindy Scheid Culpovich

Calling the No 3rd Bridge group losers is insulting and ridiculous. I am impressed with the intelligent, educated and cogent arguments against the third bridge that come from this group.

Lee Moore

From the article--"lf Salem wants to improve the livability of downtown, it has to get heavy trucks and other drive- through traffic out of the city center." 

Let's look at this, current traffic from Polk County heading to northbound I-5 typically will exit Center Street bridge onto Front Street. Traffic in the reverse direction typically will get to the intersection of Commercial Street and Marion Street & make a right hand turn. How can either of these be construed as the "city center?"

lt should be pretty obvious that "heavy trucks and drive-through traffic" that are going to & from I-5 to points south will not be using this proposed 3rd bridge.

Seems our City Council is bent on throwing good money after bad. One of the "Salem Alternative" goals is to close the Rosement exit/entrance from Hwy 22 & move it to Eola Drive. Even though they propose to close this exit, they just completed the reconfiguration of the Rosement/Edgewater intersection. lf they truly want to close this exit, then the several thousands dollars spent on that intersection, at this time, was just a waste. Recent word from ODOT is to simply eliminate Rosement from the picture without hooking up Eola.

The real "loser" here is the Statesman-Journal for mindlessly parroting the bogus talking points (of Chamber of Commerce?), without any investigation, or any contact with those that oppose this boondoggle. l challenge the SJ to actually investigate the issue---starting with looking into the actual traffic counts, both past & current, as well as future projections. However, l will not be holding my breath awaiting the SJ to do so. (Actually the second "loser" is the taxpayers whose money is being thrown down this bottomless pit.)

The real "winner" in this debacle is CH2M Hill, a former Oregon engineering firm that has moved to Colorado.

 

Brian Hines
The SJ editorial board has an unfortunate habit of expressing unfactual opinions that aren't backed up by sound reasoning or solid data. Kudos to NO 3rd Bridge for calling them out on the SJ errors in this piece regarding the horrific "Salem Alternative" bridge proposal. 

It is indeed astounding that the editorial board has never met with opponents of the bridge and bothered to learn the many excellent reasons why this boondoggle should be put to rest ASAP rather than letting it continue to suck up taxpayer dollars when it clearly is the Bridge That's Going Nowhere.

 

City of Salem took over Salem Downtown Partnership for lousy reasons

A few days ago I talked with someone in-the-know about how the Salem (Oregon) City Manager, Linda Norris, ended up controlling on her own $215,000 in Economic Improvement District funds paid by downtown businesses.

It was a lengthy conversation. This person asked to talk with me because he/she was so disturbed about how the EID was handled, and liked my blog-reporting on other downtown issues.

I was on the phone with this person for about 90 minutes. I learned a lot about how the City of Salem ended up cancelling the contract Salem Downtown Partnership had to administer the Economic Improvement District (EID) money. 

The headline, so to speak, is this:

Norris and other City of Salem staff set up Salem Downtown Partnership to fail. Instead of working cooperatively and collaboratively with this duly-selected organization that represented downtown businesses, the City undermined its efforts in various ways.

Now, admittedly this is the opinion of only one person. But this person was in a position to be very well informed about what happened during the period Salem Downtown Partnership (SDP) had the EID contract.

And, no, this person wasn't either of the key businesspeople who got SDP up and running -- Carole Smith and Eric Kittleson. He or she prefers to remain anonymous.

Here's some of what I learned from our conversation:

(1) Salem Downtown Partnership had some growing pains. However, it was making good progress for such a young organization. Good people were being recruited for the board of directors. SDP was on its way to being a much-needed voice that spoke up for the interests of downtown businesses.

(2) City staff, though, kept undercutting the efforts of Salem Downtown Partnership. The City's contract with SDP was written in an unprofessional manner, since the benchmarks Salem Downtown Partnership had to meet were made virtually impossible to attain and the City "set traps" for those involved with SDP.

(3) Once City Manager Linda Norris was told the contract didn't make sense. She replied, "I know." This shows that all along City staff wanted the contract with Salem Downtown Partnership to be terminated, the excuse being that SDP wasn't meeting the unreasonable goals the City demanded in its agreement with the organization.

(4) For example, after SDP was awarded the contract, the City changed an ordinance to allow parking district money to be removed from the funds being administered by Salem Downtown Partnership. This decision, I was told, came out of the City Manager's office.

(5) Then the City Council required large contingencies in the EID budget to deal with the uncertain parking district money. For this and other reasons, I was told: "The City did a predatory job of administering the contract with Salem Downtown Partnership."

(6) This isn't the way Economic Improvement Districts are handled in other cities. I was told there are generally three levels of community capacity under which a City responsibly administers an EID contract: A - With a large umbrella organization that has existed for a long time, like a business alliance. B - Through a city-facilitated effort lasting a year or two where the goal is to establish an autonomous downtown organization. C - Business owners organize independently to build the capacity and dialogue needed to take on an EID partnership.

(7) The person I talked with said that Salem didn't have either A, B, or C. Thus it was irresponsible for the City to administer the contract with Salem Downtown Partnership when it wasn't truly committed to B -- facilitating the growth of SDP into an autonomous organization capable of representing downtown businesses.

(8) Instead, I heard a litany of stories about how City staff undercut, back-stabbed, intimidated, and otherwise undermined the board and staff of Salem Downtown Partnership. I've heard similar anecdotes from other people associated with SDP, which gives this person's rendition of what went on more credibility.

(9) This doesn't mean, as noted before, that Salem Downtown Partnershp didn't have growing pains. It did. The initiators of SDP were businesspeople, not experts in the management of a non-profit organization. But it was the job of City staff to help, not hinder, the growth and development of Salem Downtown Partnership. 

(10) Here's some other observations made by my knowledgeable commentator on downtown goings-on: 

-- Salem now is in a bottom percentile of similar medium-sized cities regarding how well downtown is managed. There is a lot of groupthink at City Hall. This doesn't bode well for downtown, now that the City Manager has become a one-person "board" who oversees spending of the EID money with a hand-picked advisory committee.

-- The City's parking task force was a "snow job." As is the City's style these days, poorly publicized and difficult-to-attend meetings were held with hand-picked people, leading to a pre-determined outcome: a recommendation to put parking meters in the downtown HIstoric District. 

-- Salem has a suburban style of downtown. The streets are like freeways with angled parking and overbuilt parking garages. 

-- Salem Downtown Partnership was friends with downtown businesses. The friendliness went away after the City took over the EID funds contributed by those businesses. No one is holding City staff accountable (Salem has a very passive City Council.) No one at City Hall has noted past experience administering an Economic Improvement District.

Today the Statesman Journal ran a story about tonight's City Council meeting where renewal of the EID wll be discussed: "City reviews funding for business booster program."
Download City reviews funding for business booster program

The story sort of gives the impression that downtown businesses have doubts about whether an Economic Improvement District is needed. Actually, it seems clear that this isn't true. Or is true of only a few businesses.

Rather, the real concern is with how the City of Salem, in the person of Linda Norris, is mismanaging the EID funds contributed by businesses. She is treating the money as her own private fiefdom. But what downtown really needs is an independent organization that decides how to promote the area and is an autonomous voice for downtown interests.

Thus frustration is high.

So much so, there is an effort to grab the City's attention to how badly it has screwed up the EID via a remonstrance process where the Economic Improvement District would be dissolved if, as the newspaper story says, "the city receives written objections from downtown property owners on which more than 33 percent of the assessment is levied."

The City Council really needs to step in and fix what's wrong with the EID.

[Next day note: it turned out that the remonstrance processs succeeded. The EID is dead. All because of City Manager Norris and the City Council screwing up downtown promotion and organizational efforts.]
Download Business owners vote EID out of existence

Linda Norris shouldn't be managing the EID funds. Or rather, mismanaging them. The City of Salem is afraid that an independent downtown association would speak out against policies city officials want to pursue. 

That was a ridiculous reason to terminate the contract of Salem Downtown Partnership and have the City Manager take over the EID funds. Sure, the City does a lot of ridiculous stuff these days. But we need to cut down on the absurdities, not add to them.

The Salem Downtown Partnership website is still up. Looks pretty good. I was told this was another effort undermined by City staff. 

Salem Community Vision has a "position paper" about the Economic Improvement District on its web site. Well worth reading.

[Update: After sharing this blog post with the person I talked with, he/she emailed me some suggested changes. I've made some edits to the preceding material. Some additional thoughts also were sent along:

1) SDP never received professional or experienced public outreach, planning, goal setting, and bench-marking support from the City - this type of support is very commonly provided by City governments both large and small. (Especially when the City has a designated liaison to help support the downtown group).  This greatly contributed to the predatory nature of the City's EID administration. 

 

2) SDP's contract with the City didn't encourage best practices or even remotely suitable operating structures.  Some outlined projects contradicted City goals or contained timelines that were poorly planned, budgeted, or even posed possible duplication of City efforts.  Allowing a contract with such provisions and poor timelines is unprofessional and predatory. 

 

3) SDP's City liaison failed to advise SDP about compliance issues for a period of six months - this includes the time frame right before SDP hired an executive director. (I feel the compliance issue situation was being extorted to blackmail SDP into staying the course with manipulative treatment)

 

4) The Parking District funding changes undermined SDP planning efforts and discouraged larger planning efforts at that time. When directly asked why the Parking District funds had to be administered differently (after 3 years of special procurement to Go Downtown) City staff failed to provide an answer on multiple accounts. 

 

When SDP's City liaison was asked directly if she felt that SDP's situation was a problem (concerning the Parking District funds) she replied "I haven't formed an opinion on the matter."  This matter concerned the conflict by which SDP would have to budget a large contingency in City Council approved EID funds to plan Parking District projects. 

 

The City of Salem currently folds $56,680 in administrative expenses to run the EID into their operating budgets (urban renewal, general fund, etc.)  The administrative services provided with this amount of money are minor and many activities incorporate things that certain staff positions did anyways before SDP was terminated.  

 

The City also spends $40,000 on communication of which only the production of the website falls outside of the City's internal staff administration.  I saw City employees collecting emails; and running Block Captain meetings really fits into Administrative Support category.  Given this, I think its fair to say that EID dollars funded about $86,000 of City staff pay (minus $10,000 which is a generous estimate for their downtown website).  

 

Also note, the City also gets to keep up to 5% of the EID assessment for taxation/admin purposes by law - currently close to $12,000 in funding according to the City's budget.  These things held consistent - the City indirectly pockets around $98,000 in EID funding to support staff. 

 

It also seems apparent that some of the activities under the Administrative section of the EID budget are over-budgeted.  Many RFPs (which the City does all the time) are pretty boilerplate and should take more than a $3,000 to produce maximum.  

 

http://www.downtown-salem.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/eid-annual-report-2013.pdf

 

See page 9.

 

Here is my idea for Downtown Salem: 

 

Get rid of the EID.  Keep the Clean Team, Flower Baskets, and Pressure Washing (and possibly year-round banners) for about $100,000 in Parking District funds.  This can be done by teaching the Clean Team members to water the flower baskets and conduct pressure washing with equipment bought by SDP (a decision that the City once criticized).  This will provide the services people like without the animosity of the EID and unnecessary waste.  It might cost up to $120,000 maximum including admin support and cost overruns.  They might have to give up some time spent cleaning up cigarette butts to make this happen - the end of the world I know. 

 

When the City takes on the role of a downtown organization, it actually discourages a downtown organization from forming as people don't act when someone else is doing it for them.  I don't know how the City expects to build the capacity to contract out the EID again in the future (in a manner that involves all business owners).  

[Second update: another person familiar with this issue sent me an email with a few observations and corrections. Below is some of what this person said. I also was sent a recent piece in the Statesman Journal that shows how poorly the Linda Norris-managed EID is viewed. I'll attach it below.

Our City Councilor, Chuck Bennett, made a motion at council to change one word in the City EID ordinance.  This changed "The City shall contract with an independent organization to manage the EID funds” to “The City may contract”  That simple little word allowed the City Manager to take control of all our EID funds.  It had nothing to do with Parking Tax funds - but the city took those also.

 

The EID collects $220,000 per year. The Parking Tax collected $435,000 this year and used to dedicate $85,000 to $100,000 of that each year to the downtown.

 

I think some Oregon EID’s are administered by the city - but that is clearly stated when the property owners are asked to vote in the EID.  What our city did was tell the property owners the EID would be administered by the Salem Downtown Partnership then after one year, they terminated the organization and took all our money.  That felt like a “bait and switch”.

 

The City has, over the past several years, moved money from the Urban Renewal into the Parking Fund to help cover costs of deferred maintenance on the three parking garages caused by misuse of Parking Tax funds.

 

The unfortunate result is that the City already plans to stop dedicating any Parking Tax to the downtown.  The citizens of Salem voted in the Parking District and tax for TWO purposes only.  A “program of downtown promotions and program of public parking”.  It’s too bad the city is failing to honor what the citizens voted in.  When the State, County or Federal Governments put restrictions on what money can be used for - the city only uses those funds on those specific purposes.  Why doesn’t the city honor the vote of the public the same way?

 

I have attached the letter sent to all EID tax payers by Mayor Peterson and Chuck Bennett.  You can see the thinly veiled threat in the last paragraph. They are threatening the property owners that if we don’t pass the EID, the city will stop dedicating any Parking Tax funds to downtown.]

 

Download Mayors EID letter #2

 

 

 

I'll be part of Stories from the Dark Side. Existential angst, be mine!

OK, blog post title philosophical nit-pickers, the emotional core I want to get in touch with for my Stories from the Dark Side bit isn't exactly existential angst. But it's close.

I'm thrilled to be part of the next Stories from the Dark Side: Thursday, May 29, Grand Theatre, 7 pm. Tickets $10 in advance, $15 at door. Oregon Crêpe Company and Santiam Brewing Co. will be offering food, wine, and beer before the event starts at, I think, 7:30.

I've got a good dark story to share, as do the other presenters.

You can see who other dark story-tellers are on the Stories from the Dark Side Facebook page. For one, Rob Melton, a.k.a. Rob the Bartender, will be back to tell another shadowy tale.

The great thing about this event, from my story-teller perspective, is that it's a win-win deal. If my story comes off all entertaining and enjoyable, great.

But if I bomb on stage, hideously embarassing myself, and I slink off afterward into the downtown night, depressed, despondent, and disturbed beyond belief -- hey, I'll have material for another Dark Side story! 

I'm already bothered that the bio I wrote for the event organizers is longer than anyone else's. Makes me look like a self-centered, egotistical, blabby guy who likes to talk about himself.

Which, now that I think about it, is pretty damn accurate.

Happy to dump land line for Verizon Home Phone Connect

I don't know exactly when it was I decided that having a land line in these cellular days is akin to listening to music on an 8-track tape player. 

It might have been -- and, now that I think about it, probably was -- when I was crawling along in our mouse-infested crawl space, tracing two phone lines that lead from our outside Century Link box, looking for chew marks or other signs of a damaged cord.

The exercise came to seem more and more unnecessary to me. Even surreal.

Here I was, proud possessor of an iPhone and Macbook Pro, each entirely detachable from all things cordlike, breathing mouse poop fumes (or so I imagined) in an attempt to figure out why our land line had suddenly developed an annoying scratchy hummy sound.

After finding what looked like it could have been a mouse bite in one of the lines, I searched in vain for someone here in Salem -- Oregon's capital city -- who could replace/repair a residential line.

We'd already had a visit from a Century Link repair guy. I'd plugged a phone into the box on the outside of our house and heard the same scratchy hum. That made me pretty confident it was a Century Link problem. 

But the repair guy told me that I'd neglected to disconnect both phone connectors in the box, and that when he did this, the outside line sounded fine. He was right. So it was either pay Century Link $100 an hour to look for the inside line problem -- which the repair guy said might be easy, or might be difficult -- or have someone else do it.

Turned out that I couldn't find anyone who handled residential land lines. Commercial, yes. But not residential. I got the impression this was a vanishing job description, sort of like technicians who replace tubes in radios.

So that got me looking outside the box. Or rather, crawl space, because the idea of having our home phone service dependent on mouse-chewable lines came to see really archaic to me. There had to be a better way.

A bit of Googling found it: Verizon's Home Phone Connect. Per its name, it uses the Verizon cellular service to connect your home phone device to the World of Phonedom. 

Our Verizon store agreed to let me try it out for two days to see how we like Home Phone Connect. After day 1 it's working fine for us. Super easy to set up. My wife thinks the sound quality isn't as good as our land line. I disagree. But I have no problem with talking on my iPhone, whereas my wife thinks it sounds like a cell phone. 

Which, of course, it is. As is the Home Phone Connect, sort of. Meaning, Verizon cellular brings a signal into the house, then you plug a regular phone into the back of the device.

Costwise, there wasn't anything not to like.

The friendly Verizon store staffer figured out that we'd end up paying $10 less a month if we added a Home Phone Connect contract onto our Verizon bill -- if she changed our iPhone data maximum downward quite a bit, since we weren't using anywhere near the gigabytes we were paying for.

Plus, a tablet came with the deal at no additional cost. So now I'm the possessor of a Verizon Ellipsis 7 tablet. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I like this Android device. My wife has an iPad, so I'm familiar with the Apple tablet world. The Ellipsis is much more akin to the iPad than I thought it would be.

And since it was basically free, I'm OK with the Ellipsis 7 not being perfect. It has both cellular and wi-fi capabilities, which is nice. 

Our ADT security system doesn't require a land line, and we can ditch our Century Link home phone service while keeping the DSL contract. So if my wife finds the Home Phone Connect sound quality acceptable, we'll be land line free pretty soon. Our current phone number can be transferred to Home Phone Connect once we're sure we want to cancel the land line.

I'll feel like we've joined the 21st century. Like I said, mice teeth shouldn't come between us and a decent phone connection in the year 2014. 

Salem Public Library might be converted to a police facility

The City of Salem is seriously considering converting the Public Library at the Civic Center into a police facility. The library would be moved to some other location in the downtown area. 

Pretty big news. It'll be interesting to see how the community reacts to the idea. 

The proposal was discussed at today's Salem City Council work session in the Anderson Room of the Salem Public Library. Topic: how to move forward with plans for a new police facility and seismic upgrades (plus other renovations) to the Civic Center.

I'd figured that the City Council would lean toward an alternative to the original $80 million plan to build a new police facility with underground parking adjacent to the current Mirror Pond. Which would become Mirror Drainage Swale after a 75,000 square foot police facility building was constructed near and over it.

But converting the 90,000 square foot Salem Public Library to a police facility... that notion had surfaced in several settings, yet seemed too far-out and controversial to be a viable alternative to the plan that the City has been promoting since last fall.

Who knows, though? At least city officials are thinkng outside the box, a term that I recall was used several times during the work session. 

A big question is where the Salem Public Library would be moved to.

To me, the best idea was the "window to the west" lot across the street from the Civic Center. A councilor noted that this would provide library patrons with a nice view of the riverfront area.

Seems better than another idea: using the ground floor of the Marion Parkade. The plus side of this location, a councilor said, was that the West Salem branch library could be closed and West Salemians could have easy access to the relocated Salem Public Library on the north side of downtown.

Well, it's good that city officials are looking at alternatives to the way over-priced $80 million original proposal (more like $87 million, once seismic upgrades to the library are added in).

A lot of questions remain to be answered, though.

My intuitive reaction is skepticism: currently Salem has a functional library and a crappy police facility crammed into inadequate space on the ground floor of City Hall. So it makes sense to leave the library alone, other than making seismic upgrades, and to build a new police facility somewhere on vacant land out in the community with lower cost surface, rather than underground, parking.

That way a new police facility could be designed from the ground up. I heard Police Chief Moore say that if the library were to be converted into a police facility, it would requre a lot of remodeling. For sure. A library and a police facility are very different architectural animals.

So what we'd probably end up with under the notion discussed at the work session is a semi-crappy police facility in the old library building, and a semi-crappy library in some new location.

I'm assuming that a new library wouldn't have the same easy access from a parking structure and two one-way streets going south and north, nor the same kind of meeting rooms and other amenities in the current library, nor an auditorium comparable to the current Loucks Auditorium.

Regarding Loucks, the talk today was to make it into a combined City Council chambers and Courtroom. It was unclear whether it still could be used as a community auditorium. Certainly the availability of Loucks would be much reduced.

What's clear from the meeting today is this: the Mayor and City Manager are still deadset on building a new police facility at the Civic Center. This is the unmovable conceptual object that's preventing worthy ideas such as a new police facility elsewhere in Salem -- like on Portland Road -- from being considered by the City.

Comments were made by councilors that voters won't approve a bond measure with a $80-90 million price tag. So the questionable logic becomes: Police Facility at Civic Center + Must be cheaper = Take over the Salem Public Library for a Police Facility and move the library.

I say "questionable" because a lot more research needs to be done into the costs and benefits of this idea. 

The best suggestion I heard at the work session was to form a task force to consider alternatives to the current police facility/Civic Center proposal. Not, as the Mayor correctly said, to get into geeky construction and design details. But to recommend what is needed, and where a new police facility should be located.

Mayor Peterson sounded rather testy when she, once again, claimed that planning for this project has been all open and transparent from the beginning, including now. I disagree. But from now on, hopefully the openness and transparency will be genuine. 

Forming that task force would be a good start.

Converting the library into a police facility is going to be controversial, to put it mildly. This should have been discussed at community meetings before being sprung on Salemians at this work session, where nobody other than city officials and staff were allowed to speak.

Watching the proceedings today, it seemed obvious that a decision to start planning for the library conversion already had been made. I felt like I was watching a script unfold with some good actors speaking their semi-improvised lines. 

The theatrics were skillfully done. I'll give city officials credit for that.

The plot line wasn't obvious for quite a while. It was only when councilors started asking a series of questions about the library that I became aware where the work session was heading. 

Listen to my KMUZ interview about the U.S. Bank tree killings

Salemians, it's worth your time -- really.

To spend 24 minutes listening to my interview with Ken Adam's on our community radio station, KMUZ. I talked about my report, "Outrage," an expose of the completely unnecessary killing of five beautiful healthy trees in downtown Salem next to the U.S. Bank building.

Listen here.

Ken asked some excellent questions, and made some great observations of his own about how the Salem City Council and other aspects of city government work. Or rather, don't work. As they should.

The podcast was just put up on the KMUZ web site. A few minutes ago I finished listening to it myself. Hey, I learned something from what Ken and I said, and I was there at the original interview.

(At the time I was focused on what I was saying, so really wasn't listening to myself.)

Maybe a few people in Salem will listen to the podcast who haven't yet turned in their May primary ballot. The deadline is today. Turn your ballot in at drop-off locations, such as the Marion County courthouse.

If you haven't voted, I hope the interview spurs you to vote for city council candidates who will change how things are done at City Hall: Andersen, Swank, Bassett, Lor, Proudfoot. Do it for the innocent trees.

Statesman Journal shouldn't make election endorsements

Let's get this straight before I launch into my main point: community newspapers like the Salem Statesman Journal shouldn't make election endorsements. 

I'm not a big fan of the Statesman Journal editorial page. To put it mildly. You can read my blunter criticisms of the newspaper's opinionating in these posts.

Salem's newspaper gets an "F" in journalistic ethics
Inside look at Statesman Journal election endorsements
Statesman Journal endorsement of Romney: pathetic editorial

Today's editorial, "Why Tuesday's Election Matters," focused my long-time (since 1977) subscriber attention on why the Statesman Journal is making election endorsements at all. 

As noted in one of the links above, the Statesman Journal likely endorsed Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the 2008 primary because one person broke an editorial board tie. So when you see "This newspaper endorses..." keep in mind that behind that statement may be a single individual's personal political opinion.

Back in 2012 there was a rather testy SJ editorial about why the newspaper makes endorsements. Part of it said:

The easy path would be to remain silent. We would not alienate any reader. Some newspapers around the country chose not to endorse a presidential candidate this year for that very reason.

But on this Opinion page we want our voice to be clear. We want to stand up and be counted. We want all to know, whether they agree with us or not, that will we never be afraid to speak up and won’t remain silent. You can trust us to speak our mind.

Wow. So brave.

But nobody is asking anybody at the newspaper to stop speaking his/her mind. Everybody in this country is able to do that. It's that use of the royal "We" that bothers me, the implication that a few members of a newspaper's editorial board have some sort of special political knowledge and wisdom that others lack in this hyper-informed age.

The Chicago Sun-Times explained why it no longer makes election endorsements. The reasons make a lot of sense. I've added some emphasis in boldface.

Seventy-one years ago, Mar­shall Field III founded this newspaper to create a bully pulpit, on the editorial page, for America’s entry into the war in Europe and for President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s domestic agenda, the New Deal.

Somebody in the Midwest, Field believed, had to stand up and counter the isolationist and anti-Roosevelt fulminations of Col. Robert McCormick and his Chicago Tribune.

It was an era, even then drawing to a close, when many American newspapers were unabashedly partisan, and not necessarily only on the editorial page. Not unlike news shops on cable TV and the Web today, they catered to a core of readers who thought very much like them.

Those days are gone. Most good newspapers today attempt to appeal to the widest possible readership, including people of every political persuasion, by serving up the best and most unbiased news coverage possible. They want to inform you, not spin you.

With this in mind, the Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board will approach election coverage in a new way. We will provide clear and accurate information about who the candidates are and where they stand on the issues most important to our city, our state and our country. We will post candidate questionnaires online. We will interview candidates in person and post the videos online. We will present side-by-side comparisons of the candidates’ views on the key issues. We will post assessments made by respected civic and professional groups, such as the Chicago Bar Association’s guide to judicial candidates.

What we will not do is endorse candidates. We have come to doubt the value of candidate endorsements by this newspaper or any newspaper, especially in a day when a multitude of information sources allow even a casual voter to be better informed than ever before.

I hope Statesman Journal executives will consider how jarring it is for readers to be told for 363 days a year that their community newspaper is committed to pursuing journalistic truth wherever it lies, fearlessly investigating wrongdoing by politicians and government officials.

Then, on two days of the year, before primary and general elections, the Statesman Journal wholeheartedly expresses the support of its small editorial board for certain politicians -- after which the newspaper repeatedly urges readers to vote for them.

Yet us readers are expected to believe that the same Statesman Journal executives -- publisher, executive editor, editorial page editor -- who were so supportive of politician X won't let their personal political views influence subsequent news and editorial content decisions.

Understand: I'm not saying that newspaper staff shouldn't have political opinions.

But recently a reporter at the Statesman Journal explained why she doesn't sign initiative petitions or otherwise get personally involved with supporting certain candidates: it would make readers think she wasn't capable of reporting fairly and independently.

Well, why doesn't this apply equally (heck, even more so) to the newspaper executives who are deciding what news and opinion pieces get published in the Statesman Journal? How ethical is it that Steve Silberman, publisher of the paper, is about to join the Chamber of Commerce board of directors?

The Chamber endorsed four candidates for City Council. The Statesman Journal editorial board endorsed those same four candidates, offering up very little solid policy reasons for doing so. Just because, basically. 

Naturally the editorial board would take offense that their personal political views, as expressed in the newspaper's candidate endorsements, have anything at all to do with their supposedly journalistically pure assessment of each city council candidate's qualifications.

Many readers, including me, are skeptical about this.

So wouldn't it be better, as the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board concluded, to give up the charade that in this 21st century, a few people who happen to be newspaper executives have the right to use their community journalism platform to tell everybody else in Salem how to vote?

As the Sun-Times said, community newspapers supposedly represent and serve everybody. This makes the Statesman Journal different from our alternative newspaper, Salem Weekly, which unabashedly has a liberal slant. And different from the Chamber of Commerce, which unabashedly has a conservative slant.

I've lost confidence that the Statesman Journal really cares about everybody in Salem, in part because of its editorial page endorsements. Maybe the newspaper doesn't care about me, and so many others, feeling this way.

But it should.

Why Salem Chamber of Commerce endorses worst city council candidates

I heartily enjoyed David Engen's letter to the editor in today's Statesman Journal. Well, aside from his use of the term "marginal."

I don't consider the 2014 Salem City Council candidates who weren't endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber's compliant extension, our daily newspaper, to be marginal in any way. 

Probably Engen meant "outside the power structure," or something like that. Vote for Andersen, Swank, Bassett, Lor, and Proudfoot -- they will represent ordinary citizens, not special interests.

Anyway, since it doesn't take long for the Statesman Journal to put letters to the editor into its must-pay-to-view archives, here's Engen's "Those not endorsed by chamber deserve chance." Along with the cogent comments submitted by readers.

When the Chamber of Commerce becomes a political party and puts forward and funds its own group of candidates, it cannot pretend to be for the welfare of the general public.

The fact that the Statesman Journal endorsed all the chamber's candidates for the Salem City Council is hard to ignore.

An examination of all the candidates shows that the marginal candidates are a well-educated and well-experienced group. They are indeed at least as qualified to be members of the City Council as the people the Statesman Journal have endorsed and without the baggage the others bring.

Too bad they have been dismissed so lightly by the Statesman Journal.

David Engen
Salem

----------------------------------------------

Eric Palmer 

Yep......loved how the Statesman threw every non-chamber candidate under the bus with statements like....."They are too rigid in their views" simply because they promoted no more sweetheart deals for the Chamber and their lackeys. Sticking up for the average guy makes you "too rigid". Putting public assets into private pockets gets you an editorial endorsement. 

Haven't people had enough of the Chuck Sides type developer being in bed with the powers that be? Haven't people had enough boondoggles at taxpayer expense like The Meridian? How many more Boise Cascade sweetheart deals is Mountain West going to be given?

 

Terri Moore 

Totally agree, Mr. Palmer...."too rigid" means not voting how the Chamber wants....it's a symbiotic relationship between the SJ, the Chamber and Mayor/City Council...The regional Chamber of Commerce advertises with the Statesman Journal and funds candidates through their three PAC's in turn for SJ's endorsements for those candidates and City Council votes for projects the Chambers' realtors and developers monetarily benefit from, including tax breaks.

 

Kevin Rash 

Terri Moore You and Eric are perceptive. Anyone who grew up here knows that it's a small crowd who really runs this town.

 

Terri Moore 

Kevin Rash Yes, Mr. Rash, that's exactly right...the Chamber of Commerce and the non-elected, tax-payer paid employees, Linda Norris (City Manager) and Peter Fernandez (Public Works Director) are behind all of the wheeling/dealing. 

Anyone who is actually elected, the Mayor and City Council candidates, are backed and funded by the Chamber. That is how they secure their platform. Former City Councilor TJ Sullivan now works for the Chamber. Councilors Tesler and Clem are not running for re-election, but I haven't discovered where they are moving on to. Anyone out there know anything?

Whether they are Dems or Repubs doesn't make a difference, they are of the same mindset and need to go.

 

Hay Jim 

A chamber loaded City Council is not good, a balance City council with Chamber representation is good. A while back the Statesman complained about too many 6-5 votes by City council... yet to date I have not seen the evaluation of a three person commission board of GOP members and the problems Marion County has faced. I think too many decisions are made behind close doors and without a desenting vote to go after more information. 

The statesman has not been as good a steward for our community as it could be, but since i am not a subscriber and the Chamber members at least financially support the paper it is hard to complain about.

 

Kevin Rash 

Generally, I usually pick the opposite of what the Chamber of Commerce recommends. Nothing is certain except that what the Chamber wants isn't always in the best interests of the people who live here.

Hidden meanings of Andersen, Swank, and Blasi campaign signs

Over on my Strange Up Salem Facebook page (give it a Like by a click at the top of this blog's right sidebar), today I posted a paean to a local blog -- The Upright Cyclist -- I hadn't known about before.

The blogger is a genius! Reminds me of me.

Check out this amazingly well-written and amusing post, "The Hidden Meanings in Campaign Signs." 

The campaign signs of Ward 2 city council candidates Tom Andersen, Bradd Swank, and Sheronne Blasi are analyzed in entertaining detail. I bow at this blogger's feet. 

Anyone who can throw in a reference to "Gerhard Baumschneider, the noted German campaign sign theorist and author of Will to Power: Creating Overwhelming Posters and Signs that Crush the Opposition in Attractive Ways" deserves a big thumbs-up.

Especially since Baumschneider seems to be a figment of The Upright Cyclist's imagination. Way to go, dude! You had me until I Googled the reference.

Sheronne Blasi doesn't like the truth about why she moved to Ward 2

Even without looking at a calendar it's easy to tell that we're getting close to Oregon primary election day: Tuesday, May 20. That's when ballots will be counted and the results of Salem City Council races announced. Among many other races, of course.

Candidates are getting testy. 

For example, Ward 2 candidate Sheronne Blasi has taken to deleting comments on her Facebook page that tell the truth about why she moved into that neighborhood.

Just a quick note to the individuals who wrote and contributed to the recent horrible blog post about me - I will remove your related comments from my Facebook page.

Well, Ms. Blasi, here's another truthful blog post you won't like. These are your own words:

I decided to run for office immediately after serving as a temporary appointee to Council in 2012, and I moved in early 2013 so I could do so.

This explains why Blasi has lived in Salem for 14 years, and in Ward 2 for one year. She moved into that neighborhood so she could be a city councilor. 

Well, there are all kinds of reasons for moving. I've heard of politicians taking up residency in another area in order to better their chance of being elected, but it seems more than a little weird that someone bidding for an unpaid city council seat would do this.

Of course, Blasi isn't just running for herself.

She is backed by the Chamber of Commerce's political action committee along with the Homebuilder's Association and Realtor's Association. All that special interest money isn't given out for nothing. Naturally there's a tacit understanding: we give you money, you give us decisions we want you to make.

Like backing an unneeded $400 - $700 million third bridge that would displace dozens of homes and businesses, while hurting the viability of downtown Salem. Oh, and also saddling Salem residents with a massive tax increase -- since the chance of getting federal and state funding for this boondoggle is slim to none. 

I've lived in this area a lot longer than Blasi has. I moved to Salem in 1977, so I've got 37 years of experience with this town. I'm bothered by how Salem has fallen prey to the same big-money politics evident on the national scene.

Blasi is part of this. She may or may not have a brain implant that makes her vote however the Chamber of Commerce tells her to. But being backed by special interests is known to have the same effect on a politician's mind.

Salem Weekly has a good story in the current issue about this: "Most. Contributions. Ever?" I especially liked these parts.

With only dollars to go, it appears likely that Ward 2 candidate Sheronne Blasi will also exceed $10,000 in contributions in 2014.

It is the largest field of Salem City Council candidates in 26 years, and the amount spent by contributors on these races had drawn the attention of local observers.

As of May 11, the four (Blasi, McCoid, Benjamin and Lewis) have raised $61,575.55 total.  This figure accounts for over 70% of the total raised by the nine.

...For Salem attorney John Gear, the high numbers in this primary is no coincidence.

“The only real question is, why the Chamber of the 1% is digging so deep to put up such an undistinguished slate of interchangeable minions– and of course the answer is money,” he says.  “The Chamber sees buying seats on the council for docile seat-warmers who will vote as they’re told as a smart investment.”

Gear believes there is “a strong and growing movement in Salem” of people opposed to “the kinds of absurd corporate welfare spending” that he says, “the Chamber loves.”  He gives examples of the hundreds of millions proposed “for a huge unneeded bridge,” and the hundreds of thousands “spent to prop up the airport in a city that doesn’t even have seven-day bus service.”

If you're a Ward 2 candidate who hasn't voted yet, cast your ballot for Tom Andersen or Bradd Swank. They wouldn't be the sort of "interchangeable minions" of the Chamber of Commerce that Gear so rightly warns about (Blasi, McCoid, Benjamin, Lewis). 

Daniel Benjamin threw a girl into a dumpster before he hit her

Thanks to Salem Weekly, we now know more about Daniel Benjamin's assault arrest.

Before considering voting for Ward 6 candidate Benjamin, be sure to check out the updated SW online story, "City Council Candidate Misrepresents HIs Troubled Past, Gets Statesman Journal Endorsement Anyway."

The print version will hit the streets tomorrow.

You won't find this information in Salem's so-called "paper of record," the Statesman Journal. So pick up a copy of Salem Weekly and learn what the Statesman Journal editorial board, which endorsed Benjamin, doesn't want you to know.

Excerpts to whet your appetite for the full story:

Earlier this month Salem’s Statesman Journal newspaper endorsed a candidate for the Salem City Council who it knew misrepresented himself to them.   The endorsement was made while the paper possessed documentation of misrepresentations made by the candidate – Daniel Benjamin, who is running for the open seat in Ward 6 in East Salem.

...In fact, Benjamin was arrested three times in the 1990s on charges of assault, including throwing an ex-girlfriend into a dumpster and throwing her into a tree.  Benjamin’s record also shows traffic violations including driving with a suspended license in 2006.

On April 28, Statesman Journal staff was provided with documentation of these arrests, including a police report from the Gresham Police Department.

Statesman Journal elected to not publish this information, and on May 4, officially endorsed Benjamin as the best candidate running for city council in Ward 6.

The Gresham Police Department report can be read in its entirety. On the Salem Weekly web site, of course. Not the Statesman Journal's. This wasn't a sudden emotional outburst where Benjamin hit a girl. It was a lot more than that; a lot more disturbing. Read the report.

Most people running for public office would have answered "yes" to a candidate questionnaire that asked “Any skeletons in your closet or other potentially embarrassing information that you want to disclose before it comes up in the campaign?”

Daniel Benjamin didn't think voters deserved to know about his assault arrests, including this domestic violence episode. I guess he doesn't consider throwing an ex-girlfriend into a dumpster and then hitting her, along with forcing her mouth shut so she couldn't scream for help, is embarassing.

Consider that, Ward 6 voters. Then cast your ballot for Xue Lor. 

Salem's Daniel Benjamin and his domestic violence arrest

If you live in Salem's Ward 6, vote for City Council candidate Xue Lor. Unless you want to be represented by someone who isn't embarassed that he was arrested for domestic violence.

Which would be Daniel Benjamin, who has been endorsed by the usual gang of special interests: the Salem Chamber of Commerce, Realtors Association, and Statesman Journal editorial page.

They're pretty much one and the same.

The president and publisher of the Statesman Journal is about to join the Chamber board of directors, and the newspaper obediently endorsed each and every city council candidate being backed by the Chamber of Commerce.

Today the Statesman Journal finally got around to reporting Benjamin's assault arrest.
Download 5-13-14 Benjamin and Lor compete for Ward 6 seat on council

But the candidate has a blemish on his record. He was charged with assault in the fourth degree on Jan. 4, 1993, stemming from a New Year's Eve incident in Multnomah County, according to court records.

Court records show that Benjamin was charged with a misdemeanor assault, but he entered into a diversion agreement with prosecutors and wasn't convicted of a crime.

The diversion agreement included Benjamin performing 16 hours of community service. The case was dismissed.

Benjamin said he was drinking and got into "an altercation" with a former girlfriend. A Gresham Police Department crime report, dated Dec. 31, 1992, states that the victim was punched in the back and ribs and suffered a swollen lower lip.

"I have made some mistakes in the past," Benjamin said. "I am so different from what I was back then."

Jennifer Gardiner, a Marion County deputy district attorney, said diversion is sometimes offered to defendants who don't have serious charges on their record. It would be "very rare" for the Marion County DA to offer diversion to a defendant in a domestic violence case, she said.

The newspaper has had this information since April 28. So it took them two freaking weeks to let voters know highly pertinent information about Benjamin's character. Oh, aside from one hour when a corrected story was put online, then quickly taken down.
Download Benjamin and Lor compete for Ward 6 seat on council

On the Statesman Journal candidate questionnaire Benjamin answered "no" to this question: 

"Any skeletons in your closet or other potentially embarrassing information that you want to disclose before it comes up in the campaign?"

Benjamin answered, "None that I can think of." Wow.

Obviously Daniel Benjamin, Ward 6 City Council candidate, doesn't think that being arrested for hitting a former girlfriend in the back, ribs, and mouth is "embarassing information."

Hey, Daniel -- you were arrested for domestic violence. Oregon is one of only ten states that allows a judge to order pre-trial diversion for a domestic violence charge. Lucky you. Otherwise you'd have a domestic violence conviction.

And yes, Daniel Benjamin, what you did was indeed domestic violence. Assaulting an ex-girlfriend qualifies for the non-honor of being what used to be termed a "wife abuser." 

Domestic violence is a term used to describe violence and abuse by family members or intimate partners such as a spouse, former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend, or date.

But Daniel Benjamin isn't embarassed by his arrest for domestic violence. Nothing to see here, he told the Statesman Journal. Everything is cool. I'm so different from who I was back then. 

Well, not so different that you are honest enough to inform voters about your girlfriend-hitting past.

But thank you, Daniel, for letting the Statesman Journal know about your current bankruptcy. For some reason this information didn't make it into either the story about you and Xue Lor or the newspaper's editorial endorsement. 

Also Daniel, congratulations on getting the City of Salem to put you on their budget committee even though you are in bankruptcy and haven't been paying your debts to the City. But don't be too proud of this. This is called "political grooming." 

You know, when special interests collude to pad the resume of potential candidates so they will look more appealing to voters. Like putting someone with a domestic violence past, and present bankruptcy, on the City of Salem Budget Committee.

It's easy to get ahead when the Chamber of Commerce, City politicians, and Statesman Journal are pushing you along with their special interest arms, Daniel Benjamin.

I just hope your ride ends with an election loss to Xue Lor.

[Note: As an extension to this post I'm copying in the comments on the Statesman Journal story about Benjamin and Lor. Soon the story will go into the newspaper archives. I want to make sure that the comments live on as a testimony to how disturbing the behavior of both Benjamin and the Statesman Journal was.]

Statesman Journal retracts its correction about Daniel Benjamin

It's been two days since our alternative newspaper, Salem Weekly, embarassed our "real" newspaper, the Statesman Journal, by publishing a disturbing story of political and journalistic malfeasance: City Council candidate lies to Statesman Journal, gets their endorsement anyway.

The evening that story went up on the Salem Weekly website, the Statesman Journal edited its original story about Ward 6 candidates Daniel Benjamin and Xue Lor to reflect the fact that Benjamin lied on the SJ candidate questionnaire about not having any criminal convictions.

[Note: the Salem Weekly story now includes a mention that Benjamin denies he was ever convicted of a crime. Here's a link to a aggrieved letter from Benjamin to Salem Weekly.]

After the edits, the revised Statesman Journal story included:

Benjamin is chairman of the North Lancaster Neighborhood Association, serves on the board of Habitat for Humanity and is a member of the city's budget committee. He emphasized his civic involvement and national service in the U.S. Army, from 1986 to 1989, as evidence of his fitness to fill the Ward 6 seat.

But the candidate has a blemish on his record: a 21-year-old conviction for an assault on a former girlfriend.

Benjamin was convicted of assault in the fourth degree in 1993 and was sentenced to six months of felony probation, according to records on file with the Oregon Department of Corrections. The incident occurred in Multnomah County.

The Statesman Journal's candidate questionnaire asked those running for city council if they have ever been convicted of a crime. Benjamin answered "no" in the questionnaire.

When asked to explain his answer, Benjamin said he thought his record had been expunged. He said that in December 1992 he was drinking and got into "an altercation" with a former girlfriend.

A Gresham Police Department crime report, dated Dec. 31, 1992, states that the victim was punched in the back and ribs and suffered a swollen lower lip.

"I have made some mistakes in the past," Benjamin said. "I am so different from what I was back then." 

Well, the Salem Weekly story reported that Benjamin has another assault conviction, and also was arrested another time for assault without being convicted. Regardless, it was good to see the Statesman Journal promptly correcting its previously misleading and inacurate story.

For an hour. Then the story was taken down. Now the link to it looks like this.

Two days. No acknowledgement by the Statesman Journal that it ignored Benjamin's apparent lie on the paper's candidate questionnaire, then took down a corrected story about the Ward 6 candidates. Maybe tomorrow?

Meanwhile, people are leaving some interesting comments on the Salem Weekly story. Here are the ones that have been submitted so far.

--------------------------------------------

Ben

MAY 8, 2014 AT 10:05 PM

And how about Salem Weekly, were you aware of Christopher Proudfoot’s TWO convictions for Driving While Suspended & Driving Without Insurance, one of those being within the last couple years. Or how about Proudfoot’s eviction, or the collection agencies who have had to go after him?

Or even more, what about the collection agencies that have had to pursue other Salem weekly endorsed city council candidates? Did I fail to see that reporting on your part, or is it just that you won’t do so due to your political biases?

Kit Close

MAY 9, 2014 AT 1:47 PM

Business as usual with the Chamber/homebuilders.

James Rogan

MAY 9, 2014 AT 5:16 PM

Seems like a normal dude with a not so “perfect” past. Honestly Id rather have a guy like this in office than some squeeky clean guy that looks like hes never done anything wrong.

Brian Hines

MAY 9, 2014 AT 7:17 PM

Several commenters here are missing the point. It isn’t so much Benjamin’s past assault convictions that are the problem (though they should disturb voters), but the fact that he lied about not having any criminal convictions.

Do Salemians really really want a city councilor who doesn’t tell the truth?

Well, I guess the Chamber of Commerce and Statesman Journal do, because they endorsed Benjamin. The SJ definitely knew about Benjamin’s lie when they endorsed him; it isn’t known if the C of C asked Benjamin about his criminal past, but now they know about it, along with his lie about it– and he’s still their guy, I assume.

marvin sannes

MAY 9, 2014 AT 7:25 PM

The newspaper should have published the information they had. Endorse the guy, OK, but don’t endorse the lie. Which is asking a lot, I suppose, the paper
endorses so many lies by government, why should we expect them to not endorse a lie from our council.

James Rogan

MAY 10, 2014 AT 9:59 AM

People going to lie, especially in politics. Having some grand vision of some guy/gal that’s squeaky clean, goes to church every day and says their prayers at night and wants world peace is naive. Honestly we keep putting people in office that put off this fake persona way too often. I would much rather have some normal Joe-Blow dude who’s messed up a few times in life and is just honest about it and moves on. Yes, it’s a shame he didn’t just come right out and say it, “Ya I did that”. But you know what? It’s the way politics are these days you’re better off lying about it, omitting it when possible and just avoiding it if you want to play the game. Which is stupid, and it’s because people are so obsessed with this naive world view that these white washed too good to be bad phonies are going to better the communities we live in. Be honest you really want someone in any political office that’s never done anything? Not me I want someone in office that’s a little bit like me, probably done a lot of stuff and pulled their shit together and is a good person because their life experience has propelled them in a positive direction.

Wayne Baum

MAY 10, 2014 AT 3:43 PM

What concerns me is that Benjamin has not got his “shit together”. Violent assault convictions, driving with a suspended license and without insurance, bankruptcy and more are not simple traffic tickets. One does not become a peaceful and responsible citizen simply by denying one’s past and lying to cover it up. This man has problems that most people would, and should, rightly be concerned about when it comes to elected office.
I feel profoundly sad that Mr. Rogan has come to view politics and politicians in such a cynical and nasty light. The vast majority of politicians and candidates I have known and worked with are wonderfully dedicated and decent individuals. They are not without fault but they deal with their flaws more honestly and directly than Mr. Benjamin. That is why they deserve the public’s trust and Benjamin does not.
Likewise, the Statesman Journal has also violated the public’s trust in burying the story and continuing to endorse this individual. They, like Benjamin, have revealed themselves to have a very low opinion of the public they purport to serve. Shame on both of them.

Use Statesman Journal endorsements as who NOT to vote for

The LoveSalem blog has a great post today: "The Statesman-Journal's 'Eyes Wide Shut' endorsements."

LoveSalem refers to the recent revelation by our alternative paper, Salem Weekly, that Ward 6 city council candidate Daniel Benjamin lied to the Statesman Journal about his criminal convictions and got the paper's endorsement anyway, even after editors were informed of the untruths Benjamin put on his candidate questionnaire.

(I blogged about this last night.)

Read all of the LoveSalem post. Good writing; sound ideas. Here's some excerpts:

The problem for the Chamber [of Commerce], and then for the Statesman-Journal that does it's bidding, is that their policies are so destructive that it's getting harder and harder for them to find people to act as candidates who can push their line with any credibility. 

 

So, as with the Tea Party all over America, voters wake up after the election to discover that they've elected some pretty creepy people and that the so-called watchdogs of the press are really just lapdogs for the local real estate and tax breaks for sprawl lobby.

 

The result is that every candidate who got the Statesman-Journal endorsement now has a difficult problem: explaining why voters should not assume that their endorsement is no different from the one the SJ gave to Benjamin, where the SJ wrestled with its integrity and beat it decisively, issuing an endorsement where they could have simply passed.

...If voters all over Salem simply use the SJ endorsement as a "DO NOT SUPPORT" list, Salem would both surprise itself and be a lot better off next year.

Absolutely.

There are excellent alternatives to the Chamber of Commerce/Statesman Journal/Special Interest clone candidates: Tom Andersen and Bradd Swank in Ward 2; Scott Bassett in Ward 4; Xue Lor in Ward 6; Christopher Proudfoot in Ward 8.

I tell-all about Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings in The Valley View video

Aside from my bad hair day, I'm pleased with this 30-minute interview about my recently-released report about how the City of Salem and U.S. Bank cut down five beautiful, healthy, large trees in downtown Salem for no good reason. 

I enjoyed talking with Ken Adams on his CCTV "The Valley View" program. Ken gently told me ahead of time, "I wear a jacket and tie," which made me decide to dress up and wear a Hawaiian shirt. Hey, I usually just wear t-shirts, given my casual retired lifestyle.

The interview will be shown on cable Channel 21 at these times:

5/8/2014 at 7:00 PM
5/9/2014 at 2:30 PM
5/10/2014 at 6:00 PM
5/11/2014 at 10:30 PM
5/13/2014 at 4:30 PM
5/15/2014 at 9:30 PM
5/17/2014 at 12:30 PM
5/18/2014 at 7:30 AM
5/19/2014 at 8:30 AM
5/20/2014 at 2:00 PM

Alternatively, you can watch it on You Tube. After I saw it this afternoon, I thought "This Brian HInes guy makes a lot of sense. He sure convinced me that the City of Salem and U.S. Bank acted horribly when they cut down those innocent trees." 

But since I'm me, I'm not surprised I felt this way.

 

City Council candidate lies to Statesman Journal, gets their endorsement anyway

Great job, Salem Weekly -- putting up an online story about how Ward 6 city council candidate Daniel Benjamin lied to the Statesman Journal about his criminal record. Benjamin claimed in his candidate questionnaire he didn't have one, but actually he has been convicted of assault twice. 

Here's how the story begins:

Earlier this month Salem’s Statesman Journal newspaper endorsed a candidate for the Salem City Council who lied to them on his candidate questionnaire.   The endorsement was made while the paper possessed documentation of the misrepresentations made by the candidate – Daniel Benjamin, who is running for the open seat in Ward 6 in East Salem.

The newspaper conducted an interview with all candidates with a written questionnaire.  One question was: “Have you ever been convicted of a crime, been disciplined by a professional licensing board/organization or had an ethics violation filed against you? If so, please give the details.”

Benjamin answered: “No.”

In fact, Benjamin was arrested three times in the 1990s on charges of assault. Two of those arrests resulted in convictions.  Benjamin’s record also shows traffic violations including driving with a suspended license in 2006.

On April 28, Statesman Journal staff was provided with documentation of Benjamin’s criminal record.  The newspaper elected to not publish this information, and on May 4, it officially endorsed him as the best candidate running for city council in Ward 6.

Wow. This is hugely embarassing for both Daniel Benjamin and the Statesman Journal. I just left a comment on a letter to the editor praising Benjamin's "ethical voice" that the Statesman Journal published today. Here's what I said:

Benjamin will provide an "ethical voice?" Maybe this letter writer doesn't know Benjamin's full history -- which has just been reported by Salem's alternative newspaper, Salem Weekly. 
http://www.willamettelive.com/2014/news/city-council-candidate-lies-statesman-journal-gets-endorsement-anyway/

The Statesman Journal knew that Benjamin lied when he filled out the newspapers endorsement questionnaire. Benjamin said he never [had] been convicted of a crime, but actually he has two assault convictions. 

I don't know which is more disturbing: that the Statesman Journal endorsed Benjamin even though the editors knew he had lied to them, or that they refused to publish the information they had about his criminal record and details of his current bankruptcy.

I guess all it takes to get a Statesman Journal election city council endorsement these days is to be backed by the Chamber of Commerce. Truthfulness doesn't count for anything, apparently.

[Update: The Statesman Journal just updated its story on Benjamin and Lor after being forced to do this by the Salem Weekly story. I would have been much more impressed journalistically if the Statesman Journal editors had done this when first informed about Benjamin's false statements on the candidate questionnaire. This shows the importance of having an independent newspaper voice, Salem Weekly.]

[Second update: Now the story has been taken down. Link above doesn't work. Here's a PDF file of the updated story that includes mention of one of Benjamin's assault convictions. The Salem Weekly piece says Benjamin had two convictions, and another arrest assault that didn't result in a conviction.}
Download Benjamin and Lor compete for Ward 6 seat on council

Fortunately, Ward 6 voters have another candidate to vote for: Xue Lor. The Salem Weekly story says:

Benjamin’s opponent, Xue Lor, has never declared bankruptcy, has never been accused of a crime or arrested and has always paid taxes on time.  Lor has worked as correctional officer for the State of Oregon for 15 years.

 

Salem Weekly endorsed Xue Lor as its preferred candidate for the Ward 6 city council seat on May 1.

I channel the dead U.S. Bank trees' city council endorsements

Back in 2006 I had a session with a Hollywood afterlife medium, Marcel Cairo. Eight years later, I'm able to contact the deceased on my own. 

After releasing my tell-all report about the needless killing of the five U.S. Bank trees in downtown Salem, I've been receiving strong messages from the trees. They're really happy that I wrote:

"Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings" 
The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it.

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings (1.5 MB PDF file)

The trees really appreciate the people who have been telling me how mad they still are at what the City of Salem of U.S. Bank did -- cutting down these Japanese Zelkovas for no good reason. Just because Ryan Allbritton, the bank president, and Peter Fernandez, Salem's Public Works Director, had some sort of backroom verbal promise to kill the trees no matter what.

Outrage at what happened in 2013 is fully justified.

But the trees are telling me that what would really make them happy in their undisclosed afterlife location (they don't want any recently departed tree haters to come after them with ghostly chain saws) is for Salem voters to make sure that unjust tree killings don't ever happen again in this town.

As I say in the report, the current City Council members were disturbingly passive in the face of a horrible decision to cut down the five U.S. Bank trees. They sat by as the City's Shade Tree Advisory Committee voted to save the trees by designating them as Heritage Trees, which then requires City Council action.

What happened? Nothing. Non-action.

Every city councillor trusted the untruths Peter Fernandez told them: that he was required to approve U.S. Bank's tree removal application by a city ordinance (false), and the Council couldn't designate the Zelkovas as Heritage Trees (also false, given what the Urban Forester told Fernandez).

So the trees are telling me, "Salem needs some new City Council members who think for themselves rather than taking orders from special interests. This leaves out the four candidates who are being funded and supported by the Chamber of Commerce PAC and other political action committees."

And leaves in the tree Good Guys...

Tom Andersen and Bradd Swank in Ward 2.
Scott Bassett in Ward 4.
Xue Lor in Ward 6.
Christopher Proudfoot in Ward 8.

Congratulations, candidates. You've gotten the Dead U.S. Bank Trees Official Election Endorsement. 

I'm also getting some much fainter messages from the living replacement trees U.S. Bank was forced to plant after unnecessarily killing the mature 40 year old Zelkovas. Those new trees barely have a psychic voice. 

Which is understandable, given how small they are. I could barely see them when I took this photo yesterday. But I can tell they also are saying, Vote for Andersen, Swank, Bassett, Lor, and Proudfoot.

After all, they don't want to be cut down for no good reason like their comrades were. Save Salem's trees. Vote for candidates with ethics who won't give in to special-interest deal-making. 

Outrage: the true story of Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

I like the subtitle of my just-released "Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings" report.

The true story of how City officials and the bank president cut down five large, healthy, beautiful downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it.

The highly readable report is based on new information I got about this debacle after forking out $726.61 for public record requests that reveal for the first time how truly outrageous the tree killings were.

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings  (1.5 MB PDF file)

These trees were entirely innocent. They weren't diseased. The sidewalk wasn't being damaged by them. They could have been pruned rather than killed. The City of Salem's own tree expert and its Shade Tree Advisory Committee said so repeatedly. As did arborists and dozens of concerned citizens who loved the five State Street trees and wanted them saved.

Yet the trees were cut down for no good reason. None. Zilch. Nada. 

When you read the "10 reasons to be outraged by how this stump came to be" in my report, you'll understand why I called the report what I did: Outrage. 

Whether or not you live in Salem, Oregon, if you care about ethical government, trees, the environment, urban livability -- or just enjoy a tale of special interest deal-making gone wild -- you need to read the 18 page report. 

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

This is a case study of how city government shouldn't work. 

Here the Public Works Director, Peter Fernandez, ignored the law, facts, expert advice, advisory committee recommendations, and lots of public testimony so he could keep a back-room verbal promise to the U.S. Bank president, Ryan Allbritton, to cut the five large, healthy, beautiful trees down. 

The extra-legal promise itself is bad enough. Worse, Fernandez made that promise two years before the bank started the required process of filing an application to remove the trees. 

Even so, Public Works Director Fernandez was all set to order that the trees be pruned, rather than removed, until bank president Allbritton reminded him of that "just between us" deal they'd made together. It didn't matter that Albritton was unable to give a single coherent reason why the trees needed to be killed.

After Fernandez spoke with the bank president, everything changed. 

Allbritton got an unusual second chance to argue his extremely flimsy tree-killing case. He lobbied city councilors, who weren't bothered by Allbritton's mention of the verbal promise.

Maybe because this is the way the City of Salem habitually does things under its current leadership -- working out deals with special interests behind the scenes, then going through a show of holding public hearings and issuing a formal decision.

Like I say throughout the report, outrageous. There's more juicy details in the 18 pages, of course.

Download Outrage - Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings

The report includes an opinion letter from my land use and environmental law attorney which demolishes (1) Public Works Director Fernandez' false claim that he was obligated by an ordinance to allow the trees to be cut down, and (2) the repeated inaccurate assertion by City staff that Fernandez' decision couldn't be appealed. 

Feel free to leave comments or questions about my report. See "Comments" below. Or you can email me.

In the Conclusion section, I say:

This is no way to run city government. 

It isn’t a liberal or a conservative issue. Democrats, Republicans, and independents should be equally outraged when important decisions are made by officials that are at odds with facts, the law, citizen values, and the broad public interest.

Currently revisions to Salem’s tree ordinance are being considered. Hopefully ordinance changes will ensure that indefensible tree removal decisions like the one described in this report never will happen again. 

However, City government carries on. 

City officials will be making other decisions that affect Salem’s pocketbook, well-being, economic development, and quality of life. Changes have to be made at City Hall. Business as usual means more bad decisions like the U.S. Bank tree removal debacle.

Citizens shouldn’t have to spend $726.61, like I did, to learn why and how local appointed and elected officials are making important public policy decisions. Salem’s City government should be open, transparent, and responsive to the broad public interest, not narrow special interests. 

Update: I did a 29 minute interview about the U.S. Bank tree killings on Ken Adam's "Valley View" program. Have a look. Ken asked good questions and I feel like my answers were pretty damn good also.

 

Salem Community Vision expands its horizons

Salemians (the only correct name for people who live in Salem, Oregon) should take a look at a new page on the Salem Community Vision website. 

I'm intimately familiar with the Projects page, because I put it up fairly recently. I volunteered to handle the SCV website; it's been fun most of the time, except when it isn't (anyone who deals with web design knows what I mean).

So far Salem Community Vision mostly has been focused on saving taxpayers $40 million via a much smarter alternative to the City's over-priced $80 million police facility and Civic Center renovation proposal. 

There's much more in SCV's view than just this, though. Check out:

        

Downtown streetscaping
Salem's downtown historic district already is a great place. But it can be even better, attracting more visitors, businesses, and residents. Making downtown pleasantly walkable and bikeable is key. There are many ways this can be done. We can learn from other cities where streetscaping has made their urban core a marvelous place to live, work, play, and enjoy a revitalized "Main Street." 

Economic Improvement District renewal
Salem used to have an independent downtown association. It administered funds that come from assessments on downtown businesses. Now the Salem City Manager has taken control of those funds, serving as a one-person "board" who is advised by a hand-picked advisory committee. This needs to change. It is undemocratic and unproductive to have the City Manager replace an independent downtown association with herself.

Maintain and improve the Marion and Center Street bridges
The two bridges that connect West Salem with the rest of the city aren't seismically sound. Almost certainly they would be unusable when (not if) the Big One earthquake hits. Approaches to the bridges also need to be improved to improve traffic flow, in line with a 1998 Bridgehead Engineering Study. There is no need for the $400 million third bridge proposal being pushed by some elected officials and special interests. Seismic retrofitting and improvements to the current bridges can be accomplished for a fraction of the third bridge cost.