Salem Political Snark

Wasteful use of fire trucks called out by 350 Salem OR

Sending a giant fire engine out to respond to a medical emergency is like having an Amazon package delivered by a semi-trailer truck. In each case, almost always there's no need for such vehicle overkill. 

But even though just 2% of calls to the Salem Fire Department involved fires, the department is asking for $26 million in the $300 million bond levy on the November ballot to replace worn-out fire trucks. 

The reason, pretty obviously, is that those trucks are being used inappropriately. If a right-sized vehicle was used for medical emergencies, fire trucks would be used for their intended purpose: basically, fighting fires.

350 Salem Oregon is concerned about this. Below is a right-on message that was emailed to city officials on September 11 with the subject line, Council meeting 9/12/2022 re: Wasteful use of planned purchase of new fire equipment

I heartily agree that the Fire Chief needs to answer questions about the issues raised in the message so that voters can be assured that the $26 million earmarked for new fire trucks will be used wisely -- which likely means changes need to be made in how the Salem Fire Department handles medical calls.

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

To:       The Mayor, City Council, Climate Action Committee and City Manager

From:   350 Salem Oregon

             Phil Carver, Co-coordinator

For the Sept. 12, 2022 meetings of the City Council and Climate Action Committee
Public Comment on $26 million portion of Infrastructure Bond Levy
RE: Wasteful use of large fire equipment in planned purchase 

In response to our oral comment at the end of the August 22 Council meeting there seemed to be a recognition that there is a serious issue the Council should address to help passage of the Bond Levy. Many people have noted the wasteful use of very large fire trucks to respond to medical emergencies, sometimes arriving after the ambulance. Instead the City should have appropriate electric vehicles for such use at every fire station.  

The planned bond levy includes $26 million to replace fire trucks that have been worn out by this inappropriate use. The lack of willingness to address this issue threatens public support for the Bond Levy.

 

350 Salem has submitted a statement for the Marion County voters’ pamphlet for the November election supporting the Bond Levy.  We asked at the Aug. 22 meeting that the Council ask for a formal public response and discussion on this issue from the Fire Chief at the next Council meeting.  Yet there is no such item on the agenda for Sept. 12.

350 Salem brings the information below to the attention of the Climate Action Plan Committee and the Council related to this issue.

 

In 2018 the SFD developed a Salem Fire Department Strategic Plan 2018-2023. Included in the plan was this:

Objective 1-G

Responsibility:

Timeline: 2

Explore alternative non-emergency medical delivery systems.

Benmoussa, George

July 2019- July 2020

Critical Tasks:

• Investigate other organizations' alternative non-emergency medical delivery models.
• Identify which model(s) best serve the needs of the Salem community.
• Identify costs to implement recommended model(s).
• Research partnerships to fund the new delivery system(s).
• Propose implementation and funding requirements to Council and the budget process.

A few months ago 350 Salem made a public records request to ask for the results of this analysis which was supposed to be completed in July 2020. The response received was that this objective was not completed and that the SFD has no plans to complete it.

 

The response cited the City’s projected General Fund budget deficit in future years as the reason they are not going to pursue this objective. This makes absolutely no sense since successful “alternative non-emergency medical delivery systems” would presumably save money rather than cost more money. It would help resolve budget deficits.  

 

Even if the City decides immediately to buy appropriate vehicles with Bond Levy funds for the Fire Department’s response to medical emergencies, we urge the Council to have the Fire Dept. conduct and expand the study above to address both emergency and non-emergency medical problems.

 

It is not clear how often the Fire Dept. response is after or virtually simultaneous with the ambulance. There may be a way to have the ambulance be the only responder if the Fire Dept. response would be essentially simultaneous. Other systems, such as a completely adequate ambulance response, also should be studied.  

 

Summary:

There is no available discussion that would indicate it is reasonable to send huge fire trucks to respond to medical emergencies. The attached Fire Standards of Cover from around 2018 is 140 pages but has zero discussion of types of vehicles used for various purposes.  

 

The most recent data (attached) show 2 percent of responses were for fire emergencies, 73 percent were for medical emergencies and 23 percent were for other uses of vehicles. This indicates huge potential cost savings from not using large fire vehicles for medical emergencies.

 

These are very expensive vehicles to buy, operate and maintain. Much of the planned $26 million cost of the new fire vehicles and the added cost of maintenance and operation will be wasted compared to buying and using appropriate sized electric vehicles for such responses. 

 

At a minimum the Council should demand an explanation for this apparently wasteful practice by the Fire Chief. It is not clear why this discussion is not on the agenda for the Council meeting of Sept. 12. Private discussions of the issue with the Fire Chief do not address the public's concerns over wasting Bond Levy funds on using large vehicles for medical emergencies.

 

 

Download Salem Fire Department Standards of Cover (PDF file)

Deb Patterson and Raquel Moore-Green debate at City Club

Today it was pleasant to watch a polite substantive Salem City Club debate between the candidates for Oregon's Senate District 10, Democrat Deb Patterson (the incumbent) and Republican Raquel Moore-Green, who holds the District 19 seat in the Oregon House.

Deb Patterson (D) and Raquel Moore-Green (R) 

This was the first in-person meeting for the City Club in what seems like forever, but actually is just since Covid struck in early 2020. It felt great to be in the Willamette Heritage Center Dye House in physical reality, rather than watching the program via Zoom.

(That reality included made-to-order lunches by West Salem's Little Lois Cafe. I enjoyed my vegetarian cheese sandwich, plus a slice of yummy frosted banana cake that I added on for a very reasonable $1.)

Patterson and Moore-Green are nice women who struck me as moderates within their political parties. Neither staked out any extreme views. But there were clear differences between them, as you'd expect in a debate between a Democrat and Republican.

There wasn't a whole lot of room between them when it came to homelessness and affordable housing. Not surprisingly, both Patterson and Moore-Green want less of the former and more of the latter. Each said they support expanding the supply of buildable land, with Moore-Green saying she wants to take a look at Oregon's land use program without compromising farm and forest land.

When asked if they support Oregon's Climate Action Plan, Patterson sounded more enthusiastic than Moore-Green, who focused in her answer on transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy. Patterson said climate change is one of Oregon's most important problems. 

Regarding four statewide measures on the November ballot, Patterson was in favor of Measure 111, which amends the state constitution to make access to health care a fundamental right. Moore-Green talked about the increase in taxes needed to make that happen, which sounded like she opposes the measure.

Measure 112 removes the use of slavery or involuntary servitude from the state constitution, and adds language authorizing an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing. Patterson said she supported this measure. Moore-Green didn't comment on it.

Measure 113 disqualifies Oregon legislators from re-election if they're absent from ten or more floor sessions without being excused. Patterson is in favor of it. Moore-Green said that she was part of a Republican walkout and wants to keep this as a tool for the minority party to use.

Measure 114 makes changes to firearm regulations by requiring a permit to buy a gun and limiting magazines to 1o rounds. Patterson said there should be universal background checks, but didn't explicitly say she supports the measure. Moore-Green didn't say anything about it.

On campaign finance reform here in Oregon, Patterson supports it, saying that people and groups shouldn't be able to buy access to politicians, and that races are too costly. Moore-Green wants voters to decide this issue.

In general, Patterson touted her legislative accomplishments and those of the state legislature. Moore-Green talked about the need to get away from one-party rule in Salem, namely the Democratic Party.

When it came time for questions from the audience, both candidates were open to taking a look at the special treatment in state law given the Marion County garbage burner, especially given the amount of medical waste incinerated there, some from outside the United States.

On rent control, both Patterson and Moore-Green said they'd also want to take a look at this. Moore-Green wants rent control to be a local decision; Patterson said we have to listen to all sides in legislation regarding this issue.

I didn't get to ask my question during the City Club program, but after it ended I went up to Moore-Green and said something like this: I'm not picking on you, as I think this question needs to be asked of all Republican candidates. Do you agree that Joe Biden is the legitimate president of the United States, having defeated Donald Trump in a free and fair election?

Moore-Green echoed how many GOP candidates in swing districts address that question. She told me that Biden is president, so he won. I pressed her on the "free and fair" part. She said that the election was free. 

But what about fair, I asked her? She wasn't sure about that, saying that Oregon needs to inspect its voter registration rolls. So Moore-Green did what I expected her to do, when before the program started,  I told a friend sitting next to me what I was going to ask and why it was such a good question.

It puts Republican candidates in swing districts in a tough spot. If they say that Biden won a free and fair election, they run the risk of alienating the Republican base they need for victory, which is full of election deniers. If they say the election wasn't free and fair, they run the risk of alienating independents they also need for victory.

So Moore-Green did the smart thing. She split my question down the middle, saying Biden won a free election but not a fair one. 

Being a loyal Democrat, I'm supporting Deb Patterson in her election. However, Raquel Moore-Green struck me as a perfectly fine Republican candidate for those who tilt in the rightward election.

Maybe she disguised some Republican craziness at the City Club debate, but on the whole she seemed in the mainstream of traditional GOP orthodoxy: low taxes, less government regulation, local control, that sort of thing.

Great letter in support of Jamie McLeod-Skinner

Salem isn't in the 5th Congressional District now, being put in the new 6th Congressional District after Oregon gained a seat in the House of Representatives when the 2020 census showed we deserved it.

But most of Marion County is. So if you're a 5th Congressional District voter, or know someone who is, urge them to cast their ballot for Jamie McLeod-Skinner in the November election. 

Here's a letter to the editor in today's Oregonian newspaper in support of McLeod-Skinner. Cathy Whiting, the person who wrote it, is a friend who lives in Canby. She's a member of the Salon discussion group that my wife and I are part of.

My 72-year-old self was stunned to discover first-hand the difficulties a young person faces getting their independent life started in northwestern Oregon.

My stepdaughter tried to move from another state to Clackamas County to be near her father as she seeks better opportunities for herself and her young son. She had seen ads for affordable apartments but found nothing when she got here.

Widening the search still failed to produce anything that would allow this hard-working young woman to put food on the table and pay for necessities like health care, child care and transportation. How on earth do young people get their lives started?

The problem is widespread. We need more voices in Congress advocating for working families and opportunities for our young people.

Having heard, spoken personally with and then researched Jamie McLeod-Skinner, I can’t overstate my enthusiasm for this dynamic woman running to represent the 5th Congressional District. Check her out. She relates to regular Oregonians, cares about these problems and will work to deliver for us.

     Cathy Whiting, Canby

The Cook Political Report has the race between Democrat Jamie McLeod-Skinner and Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer as a tossup. I agree with Cathy Whiting that McLeod-Skinner clearly is the superior candidate. 

Here's the priorities of McLeod-Skinner.

Kansas votes for abortion rights. Good news for Democrats.

Being an avid Democrat, I needed this. A big win for abortion rights in Kansas today. Yes, Kansas. A decidedly red state. 

A Washington Post headline buoyed my liberal spirits.

Political prognosticators were saying the vote in Kansas would be close. Actually, it wasn't. 

This bodes well for Democrats in the November midterms.

The Kansas legislature, dominated by Republicans, put this constitutional amendment question on the ballot in what they thought would be a low-turnout primary election, hoping that Kansas voters would sleepwalk their way to approving a change to the state's constitution that would take away a woman's private right to choose an abortion.

But the people of Kansas woke up and smelled the risk to freedom that the constitutional amendment posed. 

Sure, it remains to be seen how big an impact abortion rights will have in the midterms, since abortion won't be a single issue being voted on, as it was in Kansas today. Yet it sure seems that if Democrats play their cards right, they can lead voters to see that electing Republicans means trashing abortion rights.

So things are looking up for Democrats. They've had some successes in Washington D.C. recently.

Passage of a bill to bolster American computer chip manufacturing. Agreement with Joe Manchin on a bill to fight climate change, lower prescription drug prices, and do other good stuff. Killing of the Al Qaeda leader via a drone strike in Afghanistan. 

Polls show that Democrats have a better chance of keeping control of the Senate, thanks to some weak, and very extreme, Republican candidates. The House still seems likely to shift to the GOP, but this isn't guaranteed. 

(Nothing in politics is.)

Up in Washington state, at the moment two Republican House members who voted for Trump's impeachment are leading their Trump-backed opponents. Washington has an open top-two primary, where the two candidates who get the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Nice to see Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse in the GOP lead. I'd prefer to have a Democrat win in November. Since this is unlikely given the nature of their districts, returning these two non-Trumpist Republicans to Congress is the next best thing.

Anyone who still supports Trump is a democracy-hater

If there was any doubt that Donald Trump is the worst president in American history, the rock-solid findings of the January 6 committee have put that doubt to rest.

I haven't watched all of my recording of tonight's primetime hearing by the committee into Trump's 187 minutes of utter inaction following the insurrection at the nation's capitol. But I listened to about an hour while driving around, and looked at some of the hearing when I returned home.

It's amazing that there's anyone in the United States who still backs Trump.

If any other president had done 1/1000 of the horrible stuff Trump did in his four years in office, and continues to do at the present moment, there's no way that former president would maintain any credibility, much less be seriously considered for a second term.

This shows how true the frog-in-boiling-water analogy is, even if I doubt a frog would truly remain in a pot while the water was heated to 212 degrees.

Bit by bit, day by day, we Americans were exposed to Trump's lies, incompetence, and malevolence so often, in so many ways, it became easy to view Trump as either a buffoon or a crazy uncle who somehow made it into the Oval Office.

But the January 6 committee has revealed that Trump is even worse than that. He's a lying incompetent malevolent crazy buffoon who also is a wanna-be authoritarian. Trump knew he lost the election to Joe Biden. 

Yet Trump worked hard to stay in office illegally, January 6, 2021 being his last gasp at trying to remain president by any means within his power. This is so un-American, so against the ideals of our constitutional democracy, anyone who continues to support Trump is a democracy-hater.

If that sounds harsh because you're someone who likes that Trump appointed three anti-abortion Supreme Court justices, cut taxes on corporations, imposed tariffs on China, or whatever, think about this.

While the nation's capitol was being attacked by an angry armed mob, chanting "Hang Mike Pence!", Trump sat for over three hours in the White House watching Fox News, ignoring the pleas of his deeply conservative staff to issue a statement decrying the violence and telling the mob to go home.

Is this how you want the Commander in Chief to behave? If a foreign power attacks the United States, are you really OK with the president doing nothing because he figures he'll benefit from the attack? And do you believe Trump would have stood up to Putin after Russia invaded Ukraine when Trump wasn't even willing to act against an insurrectionist crowd invading the capitol?

Sadly, most Republicans still back Trump, or at least aren't opposing him. This shows that the Republican Party has lost not only its moral compass, but also its political instincts. There's no longer any upside to supporting Trump.

It might help a candidate win a Republican primary. However, an ever-increasing share of American voters are beyond tired of Trump's attacks on democracy. There's a good chance they'll give Democrats more election wins this November than was being predicted just a few months ago.

Medlock now leads Gwyn by two votes in Ward 4 council race

If this was a fast-moving sporting event, rather than a slow-motion counting of all the votes, the contest between Dynee Medlock and Deanna Gywn to become the next Salem City Councilor in Ward 4 (a seat currently held by Jackie Leung, who didn't seek re-election) would have fans on the edge of their seats, waiting to see who ends up on top when time runs out.

Here's how the contest stands as of today. Yesterday Gwyn led Medlock by two votes. Now Medlock leads Gwyn by two votes.

We're not done yet with the May 17 election. A Salem Reporter story about the Ward 4 race said:

Election results must be certified by June 13. All ballots returned in Marion County have been counted, but voters whose signature didn’t match the signature on file with their voter registration, or who forgot to sign their ballot envelope, have until June 7 to correct the issue.

Burgess said there are 74 ballots outstanding in ward 4 with signature issues. Whether voters correct those could determine the outcome of the race.

All voters with a signature issue have been mailed a letter to the address on file with their voter registration.

In order to win outright, either Medlock or Gwyn would need to get 50% of the vote plus one more vote. With the current number of total votes, 5,100, this means 2,550 plus one, or 2,551 votes, which neither candidate has.

The twelve write-in votes are making it a distinct possibility that Medlock and Gwyn will have to redo their contest in the November election, assuming neither is able to win outright in the May election. Without those twelve votes, there would be 5,088 total votes. Then 2,544 votes plus one more vote would produce a winner, which happens to be the exact number of votes Medlock has now, 2,545.

Yeah, it's a cliche, but a true one: every vote counts. It isn't possible to tell when an election will come down to just a handful of votes, or even a single vote, as could happen in this race. So the simple lesson is... vote!

Local election results look positive for progressives

Election night results always change in Oregon, even with vote by mail. This year they likely will change to a greater degree, since for the first time ballots postmarked today will count if they're received within a week.

That said, it's no fun to be cautious and say, "Let's wait until all the votes are in." Instead I say, "Let's look at the results as they are now!"

Assuming those results hold up -- again, a big assumption -- progressives like me should be pleased with how things are looking in local races. 

Chris Hoy leads in the race for Salem Mayor over Chane Griggs. This would be a pleasing win for progressives, since conservatives have occupied that seat for quite a while, and Griggs pulled in big bucks from the usual Chamber of Commerce-type business groups.

Since Linda Nishioka was unopposed in the Ward 2 city council race, that's an easy win for a progressive.

The Ward 4 race is close. If Medlock hangs on to her lead, that's another win for a progressive. 

I and quite a few others suspect that Julie Hoy's main qualification to run for the Ward 6 seat is that though unrelated to Chris Hoy, who has represented that ward on the city council, she shares his last name, so some voters probably cast a ballot for Hoy thinking she was his chosen successor or relative. It looks like she'll be a new conservative on the council.

Micki Varney, a progressive, has a slim lead over Chris Cummings in the Ward 8 race. She narrowly lost to Jim Lewis four years ago, so I'm hoping the second time is a charm for Varney, who is very well qualified to be a city councilor. (She was appointed to fill the seat after Lewis resigned.)

In the Democratic primary for the 19th House District in the state legislature, progressive Salem city councilor Tom Andersen leads Brad Witt by a fairly comfortable margin. Jackie Leung, another progressive city councilor, dropped out of the race but remained on the ballot and is getting over a quarter of the vote.

It looks like Tina Kotek will be the Democratic nominee for Governor. There were even more candidates, but I cut the screenshot off since nobody has heard of most of them.

In the Democratic primary for the new 6th Congressional District, which includes Salem, I'm thrilled that Andrea Salinas is so far ahead of Carrick Flynn. Flynn had way more money supporting his campaign that did any of the other candidates, and his almost daily mailers that arrived in our mailbox grew to be irritating as they went into our recycle bin. 

Lastly, Kurt Schrader is getting beaten badly by Jamie McLeod-Skinner in the 5th Congressional District race which includes part of Marion County. Schrader has voted in Congress against progressive priorities numerous times, so this would be a sweet victory for those who want a real Democrat to represent them.

Oh, there also were Republican primaries. Since I'm a Democrat, I'm not reporting them, except to note that Christine Drazan is leading in the race to be the GOP nominee for Governor. May she and independent candidate Betsy Johnson lose badly to Tina Kotek in November, along with Republicans in other races.

Big bucks flowing to conservatives in mayor and city council races

Today the Statesman Journal had a story about spending on the races for mayor and four city council seats in next Tuesday's primary election (which usually determines the winner in those contests, since a candidate getting 50% of the vote plus one more vote wins outright and avoids the November election).

The title of the story by Whitney Woodworth shows its primary focus: where the $375,000 came from. But equally important is where the money went.

There are four contested Salem races on the ballot -- mayor and three of the four even-numbered city council seats up for election (Ward 4, 6, 8). Ward 2 only has one candidate, Linda Nishioka. 

Each race has a more conservative candidate and a more progressive candidate.

The conservatives are Chane Griggs, mayor; Deanna Gwyn, Ward 4; Julie Hoy, Ward 6; Chris Cummings, Ward 8. The progressives are Chris Hoy, mayor; Dynee Medlock, Ward 4; Stacey Vieyra-Braendle, Ward 6; Micki Varney, Ward 8.

Using the list above in the Statesman Journal story, I totaled up the money contributed to the four conservative candidates and the four progressive candidates. Big difference! 

Four conservative candidates in contested races: $272,279 
Four progressive candidates in contested races: $96,428

(The grand total is $368,707 rather than $375,000 because Nishioka raised $5,860 in her uncontested race.)

So 74% of total contributions went to the conservative candidates and 26% went to the progressive candidates. Since Salem voters lean to the left -- Obama, Clinton, and Biden won comfortably in Salem in the past three presidential elections -- I suppose it could be argued that most of the local political money tilting rightward helps balance things out. 

Still, it wasn't that long ago when a few thousand dollars and a willingness to get paid absolutely nothing to put in long hours and serve as mayor or a city councilor was all that was needed to become a viable candidate.

Now the price tag has risen to five figures, and in the case of Chane Griggs' campaign for mayor, six figures. It's hard to see that this is good for citizen involvement or democracy, but the plain fact is that this is how politics at every level in our country has been moving.

Small money becomes big money which becomes huge money. Intimate local campaigning by a candidate door to door becomes mass mailings/radio and TV ads/paid consultants.

So far, though, from what I can tell there hasn't been much of a relationship between the amount spent on a mayor or city council race and who wins the race. People power can still compensate for money power. 

May it always be that way.

Claudia Howells text unfairly smears Tom Andersen in HD 19 race

It's getting close to the Oregon primary election day, May 17. Per usual, the nastiness is ramping up in campaign attack ads. 

Here's an example.

Today I learned the identity of the person who's been sending text messages wrongly accusing Tom Andersen, the Salem city councilor running in the Democratic primary for House District 19 against Brad Witt, of being weak on abortion rights.

It didn't take much sleuthing, since Claudia Howells identified herself in the text message. Howells' husband, Bradd Swank, lost badly to Andersen in a 2014 City Council race, so this raises the question of whether retribution is a motive for Howells. Or maybe she just doesn't like people not named Brad/Bradd. Here's the 2014 election result and the text message.

Tom Andersen vigorously disagrees with what Howells says.

It's almost beyond belief that Tom Andersen isn't pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Claudia Howells must know this, yet she sent out the text message.

Probably she'll come up with the pitiful excuse that the text speaks of pro-choice voting records, not being pro-choice. But that's B.S.

If Andersen never has had a chance to vote on an abortion rights bill, because he hasn't been a state legislator as Witt has, obviously he doesn't have a pro-choice voting record.

This is a sleazy attempt to smear Tom Andersen. No other way to describe it. Claudia Howells should apologize to Andersen and promise never to do something like this again.

Why Paige Clarkson is unfit to be the Marion County District Attorney

A recent mailer I got from Friends of Paige Clarkson, who is running to be the Marion County District Attorney, shows why voters should cast their ballot for Spencer Todd, her opponent. 

It's disgusting. Todd is a public defender. But apparently Clarkson doesn't understand that in the United States everyone is entitled to an attorney who defends them in court, because the front page of her mailer says this:

And who is the company Spencer Todd keeps? Why, defense attorneys! OMG! The horror! A public defender has friends who are defense attorneys. 

(Note: if you're a spelling geek, another reason not to vote for Paige Clarkson is that she and her campaign can't spell "palling around" correctly.)

Gunn & Gunn P.C., a Salem law firm, posted a terrific response to Paige Clarkson's offensive mailer on their Facebook page. This was written by Marc Gunn.

Friends:

As you may know, there is presently a contested election for the District Attorney for Marion County in which Spencer Todd is seeking to replace Paige Clarkson. To date, I have remained neutral and have not advocated for one party or the other in this election. In fact, Mr. Todd is unaware I am writing this message.

 

Unfortunately, I have recently become aware of a flier published and distributed by Ms. Paige Clarkson that cannot be allowed to stand. The flier attempts to malign Mr. Spencer Todd because he is “paling around with defense attorneys and convicted criminals.” She then lists 11 local defense attorneys that are supportive of Mr. Todd, indicating that you should not vote for Mr. Todd because he is supported by these good people.

 

Ms. Clarkson apparently believes the fact that individuals represent criminal defendants (i.e., criminal defense attorneys) that they are somehow deplorable individuals who should not be trusted.

 

This inference by Ms. Clarkson is a symptom of a cancerous disease of tribalism that is destroying our democracy and the ability for civil disagreement and public discussion of important issues. In my opinion, this speaks of an individual (Ms. Clarkson) who has contempt not just for those who are convicted of crimes but for those who play an important and constitutionally protected role in the American justice system.

 

You should know that I am personally familiar with every one of the attorneys listed by Ms. Clarkson. In my experience, every one of those individuals is a competent, capable, caring individual who provides professional legal services in our community.

 

All these attorneys work as public defenders, representing fellow citizens charged with criminal conduct. They are all private attorneys contracted with Marion County Association of Defenders which is a non-profit association that provides Public Defense Services. These individuals are constantly underfunded by the legislature (though that is changing) and put in long hours for relatively little pay.

 

It is my understanding that many of these individuals receive less financial compensation than the prosecutors working under the direction of Ms. Clarkson. For the past six months, Marcus has been a part-time contractor with MCAD. Seeing the time, energy, and resources he has dedicated to that work provides me with an increased appreciation of how difficult it is to work as a public defender.

 

I find it telling that there are also multiple privately retained defense attorneys that have donated far more to Spencer Todd’s election than these individuals – but there is no mention of those attorneys. Does Ms. Clarkson feel that she should only target “Public Defenders” and not target those who are more highly compensated for providing criminal defense services.

 

No public figure should ever feel the need to malign the character of citizens because they choose to support the other candidate. I also find it highly unprofessional and unbecoming of a member of the Oregon State Bar to publicly express what I can only see as spite, hatred, and vitriol against fellow members of the bar.

 

Though my name was not included in the list, I am a criminal defense attorney. I represent individuals charged with and convicted of crimes. I take personal offense at the inference that citizens should not listen to someone because they are a “criminal defense attorney.”

 

Apparently, Ms. Clarkson feels that her credentials and record are so weak that she needs to engage in what I consider vile behavior. She should be ashamed of what she has published and should publicly apologize for her statements. I am sad to say that Ms. Clarkson lost a great deal of my respect today – something that is hard won and easily lost.

 

When you are casting your ballot in the next week, please seriously consider voting in favor of Spencer Todd as our next District Attorney.

 

Please feel free to share this message with anyone you feel will benefit from this perspective.

Best Regards,

Marc

#thecompanyhekeeps