Salem Political Snark

Mayor candidate Chuck Bennett is saying stuff that isn't true

With the May 17 election for Salem Mayor and four City Council seats coming up in about ten days -- VOTE! It's so easy with vote by mail -- the campaigning is hot and heavy. 

Well, with Mayor candidate Chuck Bennett let's make that hot, heavy, and seemingly untruthful. I've gotten reports that Bennett has been saying things that are factually challenged (a polite way of putting it). Like...

(1) Telling people that the 2008 Streets and Bridges bonds will be paid off soon. Reportedly Bennett said this in an attempt to put a positive spin on an $80 million or so bond measure for a new police facility that is expected to be on the November 2016 ballot. 

If the Streets and Bridges bonds are about to be paid off, then maybe Salem voters would be more likely to approve a property tax increase for a Police Facility Bond. 

Problem is, Bennett's opponent, Carole Smith, sent me this information:

Chuck Bennett told the Grant Neighborhood Association last night that the 2008 Roads & Bridges bond will be paid off soon (before the Police Station bond is sold).  

Here is what the City Recorder said:

The Streets and Bridges general obligation debt was issued in three series; 2009, 2012, and 2013.  The 2012 debt issuance has the longest repayment term and will mature June 2026.  Information regarding each series can be found in the FY 2015-16 Adopted Budget in the Debt Service Summary - General Obligation Debt section (printed page number 209, or scrolling page number 310) at:

http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/Budget/Budget%20Books/FY%202015-16%20Adopted%20Budget%20Book%201.pdf 

So, the first and third bonds sales will be repaid in 2024 and the rest repaid in 2026. That doesn’t feel “soon” to me!   Also, the Fire Bond will be repaid in 2022.   

Interesting information!

Sure is. I dutifully looked at printed page 209 of the document linked above. Here's what I found:

Yes, there is still a lot of money left to pay on the three Streets and Bridges bonds: about $68 million. So what the City Recorder said about the payoff dates appears correct.

Which makes Chuck Bennett wrong.

I'll send Bennett a link to this post so he can comment on this. Given that Bennett is touting his nine years on the City Council, so "I know what I'm doing," it's surprising that he would be so mistaken about when the Streets and Bridges bonds would be paid off.

(2) Telling people that City officials never wanted a 75,000 square foot new police facility.  This is untrue. I've followed this issue closely for several years. I've read all the reports regarding a new police facility, including stories in the Statesman Journal. 

Such as this October 2013 SJ story on the Salem Community Vision web site, which says:

Taxpayers soon will hear the city's pitch for a seismic upgrade and redesign of the Vern Miller Civic Center, headquarters for Salem's city government and police department. The estimated cost: $70 million.

...One of the biggest changes: Police headquarters would be in a new three-story, 75,000- square-foot space at the civic center.

...City officials maintain that plenty of public outreach has been done over the years. The city had a yearlong collaboration with the University of Oregon's Sustainable City Initiative in 2010-11, where architecture students worked with a local architect to determine the city's space needs.

Mayor Peterson, City Manager Norris, and Police Chief Moore promoted the 75,000 square foot police facility plan at many community meetings. So I don't get how Chuck Bennett could claim that a police facility of this size never was considered adequate by City officials.

Methinks Councilor Bennett is trying to rewrite history in an attempt to justify the current 150,000 square foot "supersized" police facility that, naturally, will cost taxpayers much more than the original 75,000 square foot proposal.

(3) Telling people that the City of Salem's contract with Salem Downtown Partnership was terminated because of poor performance. I can understand why Chuck Bennett would try to spin the Salem Downtown Partnership story this way. 

But it's pretty clear that Bennett's tale isn't what really happened, which I described in considerable detail in "City of Salem took over Salem Downtown Partnership for lousy reasons." Here's how that 2014 post started off:

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.

Chuck Bennett made the crucial City Council motion that allowed the City Manager, Linda Norris, to take over the money that supported Salem's downtown organization -- making her the unelected/unchosen (by downtown businesses) Empress of Downtown.

Here's what I learned from another knowledgeable person:

Our City Councilor, Chuck Bennett, made a motion at council to change one word in the City EID [Economic Improvement District] 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”.

In May 2014, disgruntled downtown property owners voted the Economic Improvement District out of existence, as I described in "Who killed Salem's First Wednesday? Clueless city officials."

Salem's downtown has a lot of untapped potential. A big reason why downtown continues to struggle is the cluelessness of City officials who have undermined promotional efforts in our town's Historic District core.

The first thing to know is this: in 2013 City Manager Linda Norris and her City Council cronies dissolved the Salem Downtown Partnership organization that had been responsible for First Wednesday, using Economic Improvement District (EID) funds supplied by downtown businesses.

...Not surprisingly, downtown businesses weren't happy with the City Manager waltzing in, imperiously taking over the duly-appointed downtown organization and the EID funds contributed by those businesses, then doing a horrible job promoting downtown.

in May 2014 the business owners voted the EID out of existence in a show of no confidence for City Manager Norris and her secretive band of hand-picked advisory committee members (astoundingly, Norris served as the one-person "board of directors" for the fake downtown organization she set up after usurping the EID funds).

So Chuck Bennett, the Ward 1 city councilor who represents downtown, was instrumental in killing three positive forces: the Salem Downtown Partnership, the Economic Improvement District, and First Wednesday -- the promotion that now is a shadow of its former self, since the EID funds are no more. 

Statesman Journal "Editorial Board" is a farce -- all members are newspaper staff

In its bi-ennial ritual of kissing up to the Salem Chamber of Commerce and their biggest advertisers, the so-called Statesman Journal Editorial Board is rolling out its endorsements for Mayor and three contested City Council races.

(So far they're two for two in endorsing Chamber candidates; in 2014 the newspaper was four for four.)

I feel justified in using the term so-called to describe the Editorial Board, because all of the six members are employed by the newspaper. No community members are on the Editorial Board. 

So when the newspaper says, "The Editorial Board endorses...," it would be more accurate to say "Six Statesman Journal staff members endorse..." 

Tonight the newest endorsement (for Ward 5 City Councilor) turned up online. Jim Scheppke left the first comment on the Statesman Journal's endorsement of Tiffany Partridge over Matt Ausec.

Please inform your readers about the "six-member Statesman Journal Editorial Board." Who are these people that are making these "composite decisions?" Do they include any members of the community? The Salem Weekly discloses the names of its Editorial Board members in every issue. They include four community members plus the editor. Your readers demand to know who is on your Board.

I was happy to answer Jim's question after doing a bit of Googling.

Jim, each of the six members of the Statesman Journal Editorial Board are newspaper staff. There are no members from the community. They are listed at the bottom right of the Opinion page.

Ryan Kedzierski, SJ Publisher
Michael Davis, SJ Executive Editor
Dick Hughes, SJ Editorial Page Editor
Paul Nettland, SJ Media Distribution Director
Kaellen Hessel, SJ Reporter
Carol McAlice Currie, SJ Reporter

So it's not surprising that the political endorsements are almost always in line with the Chamber of Commerce, and out of touch with how candidates are viewed by the broader community.

The Statesman Journal Editorial Board really should be referred to as "Statesman Journal Staff." As in, "Six Statesman Journal staff members have endorsed _____." irksome about this

Here's a specific example of what's irksome about this farce of an editorial board: After the board endorsed Chuck Bennett for Mayor over his opponent, Carole Smith, editorial board member Kaellen Hessel switched to being a reporter and wrote a news piece, "Familiar faces running for Salem mayor."

So after being part of a group of Statesman Journal staff who said they favor Chuck Bennett for Mayor, we're supposed to believe that Hessel is capable objectively reporting on the Mayor's race? Give me a break...

Anyway, returning to the comments on the Ward 5 City Council seat editorial, Alex Kohan weighed in with a perceptive comment on the endorsement of Ausec's opponent by the Six Statesman Journal Staff Members.

"We evaluate each race and each candidate and recommend whoever we think is most competent, effective, experienced and skilled" SJ endorsement criteria.

It is very clear listening to Tiffany Partridge speak that she does not have the grasp or depth of policy nor the experience that Matt Ausec has. There is also her troubled term on the Culture and Tourism Commission. One term is supposed to be three years on the board, however she only lasted two years on the commission, probably because she only went to 4 of the 13 meetings during those two years. Does the SJ really want someone that unreliable on the city council?

Comparing Matt Ausec and Tiffany Partridge's voter's pamphlet statement it is very clear that Matt is the more qualified and knowledgeable candidate.

Tiffany
Current: Event Planner, Communications Chair (does not specify employer)
Occupational Background: Operations Director, Volunteer Coordinator, Administrative Assistant, Restaurant Manager (apparently Figaro's Pizza) (does not specify employer for other jobs)
Governmental Experience: Cultural and Tourism Promotion and Advisory Board (see note above about attendance record), Communications Chair for Women's Caucus of Democratic Party of Oregon

Matt
Current: Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the State Chief Information Officer
Occupation Background: Lead Policy Analyst, Oregon Health Authority; Board Member, Institute for Culture and Ecology; Policy Analyst, Oregon Health and Science University; Human Resources Analyst, Nike; Data Management, US Bank; Business Analyst, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals; Public Information Specialist, Federal Election Commission

It is clear Matt Ausec is by far the most qualifed candidate for the job. He has far more experience working with policy and experience in government.

Come on Statesman Journal, do your research before you decide to endorse candidates!

Alex, that's an entirely reasonable expectation. But here's the larger question: why are Six Statesman Journal Staff Members making political endorsements at all? 

I wrote about this back in May 2014. Here's an excerpt from "Statesman Journal shouldn't make election endorsements."

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.

"Speak Up" or "Shut Up" -- choice for voters in Salem's May 17 election

Here's the important choice Salem voters will make in the May 17 election for Mayor and four City Council seats.

Do we want a Mayor and City Councilors who encourage us to SPEAK UP?
These candidates are Carole Smith, Mayor; Cara Kaser, Ward 1; Matt Ausec, Ward 5: Sally Cook, Ward 7.

Or do we want a Mayor and City Councilors who prefer that we SHUT UP?
These candidates are Chuck Bennett, Mayor; Jan Kailuweit, Ward 1; Brad Nanke, Ward 3; Warren Bednarz, Ward 7.

I've heard each of the SPEAK UP and SHUT UP candidates speak at debates and forums. I've perused their web sites and read news stories about them. 

So I feel confident in saying that people who value citizen involvement, and want City officials to be open to creative fresh ideas about how to make Salem a more livable city, should vote for Smith, Kaser, Ausec, and Cook.

Mayor candidate Carole Smith expressed the SPEAK UP view nicely in a recent Statesman Journal story about her and Bennett.

Smith — who is retired — and her husband owned and restored four historic downtown buildings, including the Grand Ballroom and Theatre. They took pigeon-infested blights and turned them into active downtown properties.

When you buy a historic building, you have to look at "not what it is, but what it could be," she said. Smith said she looks at Salem the same way. For Smith, "it's mainly about community input."

She believes that if everyone works together to make Salem into a place we'd all like to live, then more family-wage jobs will come to Salem.

"If we could just make a community we all love and cherish, how could others not know it?" she said. "We'd have a better community if we just listened."

Getting citizens to feel more welcomed and encouraged to participate in the community would be a huge accomplishment, she said. One of the ways she wants to do that is by instituting public, monthly "coffee with the mayor" sessions like what Mayor Cathy Clark does in Keizer.

By contrast the SHUT UP candidates are OK with the crappy way the current conservative City Council majority treats citizens. This is reflected in a quote from Chuck Bennett that was in the Statesman Journal story.

For the past nine years, Bennett has served Ward 1 as its representative on city council. He has worked closely with the mayor, councilors and city staff. That intimate knowledge of city workings is why Bennett said he's best suited for the role of mayor.

"I know what I'm talking about and I know what I'm doing," he said.

Well, a Mayor who believes that he knows what he's talking about and doing won't be motivated to ask people, "What ideas do you have for making this town better?" Bennett wrongly thinks he already has all of the answers.

Which, of course, he doesn't.

In a similar vein, I've heard the SHUT UP City Council candidates say that everything is fine with the inadequate way City government currently views public participation. I talked about this in "Edgiest moments from Salem City Council Candidate Forum."

Citizen involvement. Kailuweit and Nanke repeatedly referred to the City Council's Budget Committee as being a marvelous example of how open and transparent city government is. Why, anyone can be involved in the budgeting process. All you have to do is somehow learn that the Committee is meeting, then have the time and inclination to testify. 

They were astounded that -- shock! -- often no citizens take part in the Budget Committee goings-on. But in line with the Chamber of Commerce Team motto, Everything is great in Salem, so keep things just as they are, Kailuweit and Nanke saw little or no need to do anything differently, citizen-outreach-wise. 

On the other hand, the Progressive Team was big on encouraging more public involvement in City of Salem affairs. Ausec said that expensive consultants should be used less, and knowledgeable local people should be used more. Cook said that citizens should be talked to on the neighborhood level, rather than expecting citizens to troop down to City Hall at inconvenient times in order to weigh in on policy issues.

So I urge Salem citizens to vote for the SPEAK UP candidates: Carole Smith, Cara Kaser, Matt Ausec, Sally Cook.

It's no fun to be told to SHUT UP -- especially by so-called "public servants."

Chuck Bennett gets lots of love (and money) from homebuilder PACs

Love may be ineffable when it comes to personal relationships. But love is quantifiable when we're talking about political campaign contributions.  

Individuals and organizations give the most money to candidates they love the most.

So even though browsing through records of political campaign contributions isn't all that fun, tonight I kind of enjoyed exploring the love-fest between Salem Mayor candidate Chuck Bennett and several homebuilder PACs (Political Action Committees).

I also looked into Carole Smith's campaign finances, but this wasn't nearly as interesting. A brief discussion of Smith's contributions follows my report on Bennett's.

ORESTAR is where the Oregon Secretary of State makes campaign finance reports publicly available. At first it was a bit confusing to find my way around, but I soon got my bearings. As you'll see, tracing the linkages between contributions can be intriguing for political junkies like me.
 
Here's the Chuck Bennett for Mayor summary page. Bennett has gotten $34,090 in cash contributions. I then looked to see who the biggest contributors to his 2016 Mayoral campaign are. (click to enlarge the photos)

The Oregon Realtors Political Action Committee gave Bennett $5,000. That was topped only by the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, which gave Bennett $7,500. 

Hmmmm. I was surprised by the $7,500 contribution, because at first I naively thought that a group with "affordable housing" in its name was concerned with homelessness, low-income housing, and such.

And I wasn't aware that groups like this had $7,500 to throw at Mayor candidates -- especially Bennett, who isn't known as an avid advocate in this area. Thus my next step was to click on the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition name in the ORESTAR report.

I learned that the people associated with the committee share the address of the Homebuilders Association of Marion and Polk Counties.

In fact, the treasurer of the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, Mike Erdmann, is the CEO of the Marion/Polk Homebuilders Association.

So that cleared up the mystery of the Affordable Housing Coalition. It is the political arm of the Marion/Polk Homebuilders Association.

Given all the concern about homelessness and affordable housing these days, I suspect the homebuilders folks thought Affordable Housing Coalition would sound better than Pave the Planet and Enrich Already Rich Builders PAC. 

Looking through the records of the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, I noticed a big $14,525 contribution to the Coalition from a similarly-named group, Oregonians for Affordable Housing. Also, that the Affordable Housing Coalition had given $5,000 to Salem City Councilor Warren Bednarz' re-election campaign against challenger Sally Cook.

So my next question was, who the heck is Oregonians for Affordable Housing? The name sounded like a big-hearted liberal group dedicated to helping low-income people. Of course, the reality was way different.

 

Oregonians for Affordable Housing hangs out at an address next door to the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition.

Which turns out to be the address of the Oregon Home Builders Association. So all these cozy political action committee relationships got me making up lyrics to an updated sort of old Beatles song.

"I am Chuck Bennett, who am supported by the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, who am the Homebuilders Association of Marion and Polk Counties, who am supported by Oregonians for Affordable Housing, who am the Oregon Home Builders Association, and we are all one... in Political Action Committee'ness; also, we are the walrus."

Oh, but wait, I'm not quite done, because I'd noticed that the Mid-Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, a.k.a. the Homebuilders Association of Marion and Polk Counties, had given $7,500 to the Salem Chamber of Commerce's Build Jobs PAC in October 2015.

Naturally I had to click on over to the Build Jobs PAC to see what was happening there. This caught my eye: a $5,000 contribution from Mountain West Investment (the Tokarski company which is building the South Block Apartments on the old Boise Cascade property, a beneficiary of generous tax breaks from the City of Salem). 

On the same day the $5,000 Mountain West contribution came in, April 12, the Build Jobs PAC donated the same amount to the three candidates endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce: Chuck Bennett, Mayor ($3,000); Jan Kailuweit, Ward 1 City Councilor ($1,000); Warren Bednarz, Ward 7 City Councilor ($1,000).

So, yeah, Chuck Bennett is tied into a weird and wacky complicated campaign finance world of homebuilding political action committees who are supporting Chamber of Commerce candidates. There's more, of course -- such as another $5,000 Mountain West contribution to the Build Jobs PAC -- but my brain couldn't handle any more digging into ORESTAR reports.

Now... what about Carole Smith?

Well, her summary report was pretty boring. Smith has gotten just $3,649 in cash contributions. Mostly her campaign is being financed by $21,000 in loans -- all from herself, I believe. 

But she does have a fairly significant $1,000 contribution from an individual who lives in Salem. His name is the same as mine. Because, he's ME!

Damn, great investigative reporting, dude. I found my own campaign contribution.

Which I made because I know Carole Smith well, have worked with her on numerous citizen activism efforts to make Salem a better place, and feel that she would be a way better Mayor than Chuck Bennett.

Bennett, as I've shown in this post, is the Dearly Beloved of special interest groups like homebuilder associations. Chuck is an insider lobbyist who currently is the Ward 1 city councilor. During his nine years on the Salem City Council, he's obviously convinced the Chamber of Commerce PAC and other special interests that he'll look out for them as Mayor.

And that's a big reason why I don't think Bennett should be Mayor.