Sens Udall, Schumer, Merkley discuss campaign finance reform.

scrutiny, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) released a statement on May 15. While Merkley’s statement denounced the actions, he left more questions than answers regarding a 2012 letter he cosigned that demanded action by the IRS to create more disclosures by tax-exempt groups. These disclosures demanded by Merkley and several other Senators align with the actions by the IRS against conservative groups.

The statement released on May 15 says,

Merkley Statement on Inspector General IRS Report

 Washington – Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley issued the following statement after the release of an Inspector General report that the IRS was inappropriately targeting conservative groups for reviews of their tax-exempt status.

“What the IRS did was wrong. Targeting groups by their name or their ideology is absolutely unacceptable. The IRS has a lot of power and it is imperative that it be used evenhandedly. A full investigation should be conducted, responsible people should be punished, and action should be taken so that this inappropriate targeting doesn’t happen again.

“The IRS dropped the ball when it failed to create clear standards for the kinds of election activities tax-exempt groups can participate in. The IRS should have written clear rules and requirements for 501(c)(4)s years ago. There is no doubt we have political groups that are inappropriately masquerading as ‘social welfare organizations’ to claim tax-exempt status and keep their donors secret. We need criteria with clear bright lines laying out what groups with tax-exempt status are allowed to do and not do, regardless of the groups’ political views, so that decision isn’t left with IRS bureaucrats.”

While Senator Merkley states that the actions taken by the IRS were “absolutely unacceptable”, he goes on to say that the IRS should determine “clear bright lines laying out what groups with tax-exempt status are allowed to do and not do”.

This is consistent with a letter he signed in May 2012, authored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), that according to the Washington Post, demanded stricter IRS standards for tax-exempt groups. Indeed, the letter reads as a threat to create legislation if the demands of the senators were not met:

The lawmakers promised legislation if the IRS failed to address the issues with specific measures, namely clarifying how much political activity is acceptable for tax-exempt groups, requiring the organizations to document how much of their work is dedicated to non-political purposes and demanding that they tell donors what percentage of their contributions can be claimed as deductions.

“We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities,” the senators said.

When reached for comment on the morning of May 15, Senator Merkley’s office was quick to provide the original statement. However, as of this writing, repeated followup requests for comment on the 2012 letter have gone unanswered.

As reported late this afternoon in the Chinook Observer,

CHEHALIS — The 15-year-old son of state Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, pleaded guilty Tuesday in the juvenile division of Lewis County Superior Court to four counts of first-degree rape of a child and four counts of first-degree child molestation for crimes that reportedly took place in Hatfield’s home, according to court documents.

According to the Centralia Chronicle, the 15-year-old was taken into custody and booked into the Lewis County Juvenile Detention Center before being released into his father’s custody.

In a story initially brought to light late last week by KIRO Eyewitness News in Seattle, this already bad situation is complicated by the fact that Hatfield and the victim’s mother did not report the abuse to authorities when it came to their attention this February. This omission was corroborated by a Lewis County Sheriff’s Office report cited Tuesday.

According to court documents, the victim is also a member of the family, more than 3 years younger than the perpetrator. The incidents of abuse only came to light when the victim reported it to school authorities in Chehalis, WA. According to the detective’s report,

Initial information provided by school personnel indicated that [victim] disclosed sexual abuse by [perpetrator] … The Hatfield’s [sic] maintain residences in both Raymond, WA and Chehalis, WA.

[Victim] is very articulate and intelligent for his age, and had no problem speaking to [detective] on a technical/clinical as well as conversational level. [Victim] demonstrated the ability to differentiate between truth and lies, and promised to tell the truth.

[Victim] related that most of his contact with [perpetrator] was at the Hatfield residence in Raymond, Pacific County. [Victim] described his relationship with [perpetrator] as uneventful until November, 2012 when [perpetrator] began to make sexual contact with him.

It is notable that the abuse BEGAN in Pacific County, but the Pacific County authorities have stated that they will not pursue the case, according to the Chinook Observer – opting instead to allow the authorities in Lewis County to handle the prosecution.

The details of the abuse related to the detective in Chehalis include coercion, detention, forced participation in watching pornography, and threats of retribution if the abuse were reported to adults:

The last time it happened, in the Chehalis home in February 2013, the mother walked in on the two of them while it was going on. The mother “immediately ordered [victim] out of the room, telling [perpetrator] to stay in the room until further notice. [Victim] said [mother] then took him downstairs and asked what was happening. [Victim] stated he told [mother] what was going on when she entered his room, and that there had been numerous times the abuse had occurred. [Victim] admitted he did not disclose the entirety of the abuse to [mother] at the time. [Victim] told [detective] that [mother] told him that she and Brian Hatfield were attempting to get [perpetrator] into therapy, and would be having him turn himself in to authorities. [Victim] told [detective] to the best of his knowledge no punitive action had been taken by Brian and [mother], except to cease all contact between [perpetrator] and [victim].

According to Washington state law,

     (d) The reporting requirement shall also apply to any adult who has reasonable cause to believe that a child who resides with them, has suffered severe abuse, and is able or capable of making a report. For the purposes of this subsection, “severe abuse” means any of the following: Any single act of abuse that causes physical trauma of sufficient severity that, if left untreated, could cause death; any single act of sexual abuse that causes significant bleeding, deep bruising, or significant external or internal swelling; or more than one act of physical abuse, each of which causes bleeding, deep bruising, significant external or internal swelling, bone fracture, or unconsciousness.

Hatfield’s attorney, Christine Beckwith of Tacoma, put out a statement this afternoon refuting the claim that he and his wife were criminally negligent:

The Hatfield family has been asked to respond regarding Senator Brian Hatfield’s son being accused of criminal offenses.  Senator Hatfield was told by his wife that she had witnessed some inappropriate behavior by his son B.A.H. towards the end of February 2013.  In abundance of caution, Senator Hatfield called our office for a consultation for his son to see what the best course of action would be.  I privately interviewed B.A.H. in a conversation that is and was protected by attorney/client privilege.  That information was never disclosed to Senator Hatfield or his wife.  There was never any information that was disclosed to Senator Hatfield that would trigger a legal requirement for him to report any conduct to legal authorities.  Upon my advice, Senator Hatfield changed his supervision plan for his son and was in the process of setting up appropriate counseling at my direction.  When those things were in place it was the intention of B.A.H. to turn himself in to the proper authorities to address the underlying criminal offenses.  Prior to being able to do that there was a report to law enforcement, and B.A.H. turned himself in to law enforcement without incident.  B.A.H. is a minor and no different than any other juvenile offender other than his father being an elected official.  The Hatfield family hopes that B.A.H. will be treated fairly and justly under the law, and not given a more severe penalty than other similarly situated juvenile offenders.  Because all the parties that are involved in this case are minors, the families are hoping that the media respects the unique nature of juvenile crimes.  The purpose of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate offenders so that they can go on to be productive law abiding adult citizens.  B.A.H., has had several catastrophic loses including his mother dying at a young age.  His extremely difficult childhood is a contributing factor in this case, and is not an uncommon history of other juvenile offenders.  The family hopes that the media will be cautious in the printing and disseminating the names of juveniles that ultimately may have the opportunity for the sealing of the criminal record in the future.  Every measure is being taken to ensure that this matter is dealt with in an appropriate and thoughtful manner for all involved parties.

The question seems to revolve around this statement by Hatfield’s attorney: “There was never any information that was disclosed to Senator Hatfield that would trigger a legal requirement for him to report any conduct to legal authorities.”

Specifics may not have been disclosed by the attorney to Hatfield, but the police report clearly states that both Hatfield and his wife were already aware of the abuse, and in fact, Hatfield reported the abuse to the attorney by her own admission. This is all public information, clearly not privileged, and clearly known by both Hatfield and his wife at the time. It remains unclear that Hatfield would avoid charges under the requirement to report statute.

This is not the only question about this case that remains unresolved. The failure of the Pacific County authorities to pursue this case has drawn scrutiny, given the entrenched status of the Hatfield family in county politics. Gail Hatfield, Brian’s mother, served several terms as the County Clerk, and several other members of the family have been elected to office over the years.

According to the Chinook Observer article previously cited, “Hatfield is chairman of the State Senate Agriculture Committee and has been a key legislative vote on various matters, including the recently passed Senate budget.” The recently ended session has been remarkably contentious according to media reports, and the legislature failed to pass the politically charged funding of the Columbia River Crossing project. A special session has been called that will take up unresolved budgetary items. Hatfield is a longtime insider in the Washington State Democratic Party, having worked as a legislative assistant for the legendary Sid Snyder. He also worked as a legislative and community relations liaison for Washington State Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen from 2004 to 2006.

Late breaking reports indicate that Hatfield may be considering resigning.

In recent years, the Hatfield family has experienced numerous hardships, adding a layer of difficulty to the reporting of this tragic story. Hatfield’s first wife succumbed to cancer in 2007, impacting the entire family. Hatfield’s mother, Gail, has been in public service for many years in Pacific County and is also battling cancer.

15.064 Possession of a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place.
(A) It is unlawful for any person in a public place, to carry a firearm upon the person, or while in a vehicle in a public place, unless all ammunition has been removed from the chamber and from the cylinder, clip, or magazine. A person who violates this section is subject to penalty even if the person did not know that ammunition was in the cylinder, chamber, clip or magazine.
(B) The prohibitions of subsection (A) of this section do not apply to or affect:
(1) Those listed in ORS 166.173(2).
(2) Licensed hunters engaged in lawful hunting.
(3) Persons engaged in target shooting at an established shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting.
(4) A government employee authorized or required by his or her employment or office to carry firearms.
(5) A security guard employed at a financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation while the security guard is on duty.
(6) A person with written authorization from the Multnomah County Sheriff or his designee.
(C) It is unlawful for any person who possesses a firearm, clip or magazine in or upon a public place, or while in a vehicle in a public place, to refuse to permit a peace officer to inspect that firearm, clip or magazine after the peace officer has identified himself or herself as such. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to or affect the persons listed in subsection (B) of this section.
15.065 Discharge of a Firearm.
(A) It is unlawful for any person to fire or discharge a firearm within the boundaries of the County.
Page 4 of 5 – Adding new ordinances to Chapter 15 and amending §15.051 to address firearm safety in
Multnomah County.
(B) The prohibition of subsection (A) of this section does not apply to or affect those listed in ORS 166.171(2).
15.066 Endangering a Child by Allowing Access to a Firearm.
(A) A person commits the offense of endangering a child if a person fails to prevent access to a loaded or unloaded firearm by a minor without the permission of the person, a parent or guardian, when the person knew or reasonably should have known that a minor could gain access to the firearm.
(B) Subsection (A) of this section does not apply when:
(1) The minor obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry into any premises under the person’s custody or control.
(2) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from entry by the minor.
(3) The firearm is locked with a device that has rendered the firearm inoperable and is designed to prevent minors and unauthorized users from firing the firearm. The device may be installed on the firearm, be incorporated into the design of the firearm, or prevent access to the firearm.
(C) Penalty: Violation of subsection (A) of this section is punishable by incarceration for not more than 10 days and a fine of not more than $500.
15.067 Failure to Report Theft.
(A) Any person who possesses, owns or controls a firearm in the County shall report the theft or misplacement of the firearm to law enforcement and provide a description of the firearm, within 48 hours of knowing, or having reason to know, the firearm is stolen or cannot be located through reasonable effort.
(B) A person who possesses, owns or controls a firearm in the County and fails to provide the serial number of the firearm when reporting the firearm in accordance with subsection (A) of this section is subject to a $200 administrative fee.
(C) Violation of subsection (A) of this section is punishable by a fine of $2,500.
Section 2. Amending MCC Chapter 15 relating to the Curfew for Minors:
(Language stricken is deleted; underlined language is new)
§ 15.051 CURFEW HOURS
For the purposes of this subchapter, the applicable hours of curfew shall be:
(A) As to minors under 14 years of age who have not begun high school, the hours shall be between 9:15 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except that during the months of June, July, and August, the hours shall be between 10:15 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except as further limited by subsection (C) of this section.
Page 5 of 5 – Adding new ordinances to Chapter 15 and amending §15.051 to address firearm safety in
Multnomah County.
(B) As to minors 14 years of age or over who have begun high school, the hours shall be between 10:15 p.m. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, and between 12:00 midnight on Friday or Saturday, or any legal holiday, and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except that during the months of June, July and August, the hours shall be between 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, except as further limited by subsection (C) of this section.
(C) For minors who have been found by a court to have possessed, purchased, used, transferred or transported a firearm unlawfully and are under the jurisdiction of the court as a result of that adjudication, curfew is between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning except for minors meeting the exception of §15.050 or with written permission of the minor’s probation or parole officer or juvenile court counselor.

Critics were quick to condemn the new restrictions, stating that these new restrictions would do nothing to curb violence, and actually would have the opposite effect of making Oregon’s largest county LESS safe. Kevin Starret, Director of Oregon Firearms Federation, said in an email,

Today, the Multnomah County Commissioners unanimously passed an ordinance to demonize gun owners while having no effect on criminals or the violently mentally ill.

Open loaded carry will now be illegal in Multnomah County for non-licensees.

Only security guards who work at banks will be allowed tobe armed. Armed guards elsewhere would be prohibited   (Apparently much of the “gun violence” is being committed by security guards.)

It will now be unlawful for a person without a CHL to have a loaded magazine or speed loader in any public place, including your car,anywhere in the county.

It will now be unlawful to refuse to allow the police to inspect a magazine you have…even if you don’t have a gun!

It will now be a crime to allow a minor to have access to one of your firearms, unless of course, you’ve given him permission to have it.(We know, it makes no sense.)

This won’t apply if the minor was on your property illegally.  This won’t apply if your gun had a trigger lock.  The County has not explained how they will prove your firearm did NOT have a trigger lock.  We are confident that all guns that are obtained by minors from this point on, will be reported to have had trigger locks.  (It would appear that none of the County Commissioners are Mensa candidates.)

If your firearm is stolen and you don’t report the theft within 48 hours of “knowing or having reason to know” that it was stolen,you face a $2,500.00 fine.  We predict there will be lots of people who didn’t “know” their guns were stolen.

If your gun is stolen and you can’t provide a serial number, you will be charged a $200.00 “administrative fee.”  They don’t say what that fee is supposed to cover.

All in all, pointless rules that are only intended to harass and demonize gun owners. The Sheriff of Multnomah County thinks these rules are a great idea. The County has no rules punishing people who allow minors access to their car keys.

Reports are that the overwhelming majority of people who testified were in opposition.

As we posted earlier, County Chair Jeff Cogen did not disagree with the critics of these new restrictions, saying that it would indeed not reduce gun violence, but that it was important to do something that “reflects what community values and community standards should be”. Speculation is already rampant that these ordinances won’t pass constitutional muster and will be overturned in court. As Starrett pointed out in his email, the overwhelming consensus of those who gave public testimony before the vote were in opposition to these bills, despite Cogen’s claims that the overwhelming majority of citizens favor ‘sensible gun restrictions’.

One thing is for certain – whether it is via ballot initiative or lawsuit, the fight over this new ordinance has only begun.

However, prominent Republicans sharply criticized the bill and the process by which it was passed, and even some Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill. According to the Capitol Currents blog, Speaker of the House Tina Kotek (D-Portland) has angered legislators on both sides of the aisle:

Kotek said that she wants it to go through as it is, without any major amendments.

“I’m not open to any changes,” she said.

The bill has been bashed repeatedly from both sides, but the Democrats’ have balanced their budget on this bill and a plan to save $275 million by closing some tax loopholes. Kotek said both proposals would need bipartisan support to pass and said the budget can’t be balanced without both.

“I think it’s a little like a poker game,” she said. “We’re trying to figure out how you play and win the pot.”

Even so, she said the current PERS proposal is as far as she’s willing to go on the subject, especially after listening to hours of testimony from retirees who said the cuts would hurt them financially.

“That helped firm up for me that what we’re doing is reasonable,” she said, arguing that anything more would be too harsh for retirees who have done nothing wrong. She said the key is “shared sacrifice,” which will mean closing tax breaks for the private sector as well.

And she acknowledged that no one likes the bill.

“No one is happy with Senate Bill 822,” Kotek said. “We’re clearly doing something right if no one is happy.”

In an email interview, Dennis Richardson (R-Central Point) strongly criticized the missed opportunity to make more fundamental changes to PERS:

The Democratic leaders in the Legislature are proposing SB 822 as a PERS fix.  In reality, SB 822 merely delays payments on $350 million of PERS debt for two years, and proposes $455 million of PERS “tweaks,” which are less than 1/2 of the $906 million PERS cost increases that will occur just in the next two-year budget–2013-15.

The most important issue for the Legislature to face this Session is to “FIX PERS.”  SB 822 is “PERS-Lite” and it is not a good-faith attempt to address the PERS crisis.  Such a low contribution toward the $14+ billion PERS unfunded liability is an obvious cowering of Democrat politicians to their public employee union masters.

SB 822 does not “fix PERS” and I will stand with Legislators who demand REAL PERS Reform by voting against this thinly-veiled appeasement to the public employees’ unions.  We  should not let the Democrats settle for anything less than actually “Fixing PERS.” The days of kicking the PERS cost can down the road to future Legislatures must end.

Even Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber has said that this bill does not go far enough to rein in the costs of PERS, though he has signaled that he will sign it if it hits his desk. The bill now moves to the Oregon House, where it is expected to be voted upon next week.

Al Margulies, a retired TriMet bus driver and an avid blogger, posted a copy of the class action lawsuit he filed back in January on his website, Rantings of a Former TriMet Bus Driver. In the lawsuit, he alleges that the agency is involved in unfair labor practices, primarily that vehicle operators aren’t fairly paid for all the time they work. TriMet’s lawyer moved on Wednesday that the suit be moved to federal court.

The lawsuit is garnering significant support within the state of Oregon and also across state lines; 14 plaintiffs have joined with Margulies to push the suit, and a California law firm is helping to represent the disgruntled operators. Paul Breed, a Portland attorney who is teaming up with the law firm to pursue this case, discussed some of the details with Willamette Week.

The suit focuses on the times when operators aren’t actively transporting passengers, but instead are moving from one location to another in preparation for a new route, or returning to the location where their vehicle is parked.

“They have a practice of not paying drivers for the time in between split shifts,” Breed said.

He claims that, by law, the operators are required be compensated. “It’s time that the drivers are not effectively able to put to their own use,” he said to Willamette Week, “and it should be considered compensable under federal and state wage laws.”

Furthermore, the lawsuit also alleges that operators aren’t actually paid for the amount of time it takes to work their shift; instead, pay is doled out based on the amount of time TriMet determines a particular route should take. For any route that runs over the estimated time, the operator isn’t compensated for the extra time.

Last year, a similar case filed in California against the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District was settled in favor of over 1,300 operators who signed on to the suit. Margulies’ lawsuit against TriMet is more ambitious, asking for $20 million in both state and federal claims. This is compared to the $7 million for operators asked in California, as well as $10,000 for each of the main plaintiffs. The judge in the California case also awarded $1.65 million in attorney fees to the plaintiffs.

Breed told Willamett Week that Margulies’ case will likely garner more signatories as time goes on. TriMet’s Attorney Gregory Skillman has declined to comment.

Tensions have been building ever since September of 2012, when Initiative Measure 3-401, supported by a group of light rail opponents, was passed by a 60-40 vote. Measure 3-401 requires a countywide vote before officials can spend money on any light rail operations in Clackamas County.

However, with the Portland-Milwaukie line already at 35% completion, several groups – including TriMet, the public agency responsible for mass transit within the Portland area – are becoming increasingly frustrated. Since the measure’s passage, Clackamas county has failed to fulfil several conditions and building projects outlined in contracts signed with TriMet, which has made it difficult for work to continue in the county.

A standstill has been reached, as county officials are still waiting for the voters to sign off on the project. TriMet, conversely, has been putting more and more pressure on the county commissioners  culminating with the recently filed lawsuit. Clackamas County commissioners say they saw the possibility of a lawsuit, but didn’t expect it so soon.

Clackamas County Chair John Ludlow expressed his concerns about financial risk to Clackamas County due a partnership with TriMet in a letter sent to the agency in January. “They continue to cut back buses, they continue to raise fares, they aren’t great partners to start with,” he said in a statement.

Reported from the Oregonian:

“This is a clear mandate for the citizens of Clackamas County that they want the opportunity to vote on light rail and rail projects,” said Jim Knapp, who originally sponsored the Measure 3-401. “The county commissioners aren’t listening.”

Clackamas County Commissioner Jim Bernard, who is himself a strong supporter of light rail, agrees with TriMet and their lawsuit. “I totally agree with them,” Bernard said. “We have a contract. We expect them to follow their contract, they should expect us to follow ours.” Bernard also criticized Ludlow, Knapp, and others who supported Measure 3-401. ”I think it’s a mistake to put something on the ballot and not follow through,” he said. “And I don’t think there’s any way to follow through if the voters said no, because of the contract.”

TriMet responded to the Ludlow’s letter by pointedly requesting that Clackamas County follow through with its commitments, regardless of voter opinion.

“We understand that Clackamas County voters want a say in any rail projects based on Measure 3-401, but that does not affect the current Portland-Milwaukie project,” said Mary Fetsch, TriMet Spokeswoman. “Unfortunately, we have to take this action to prevent delays that could impact the overall cost and schedule of the Project.”

In a 2010 report, Attorney General John Kroger noted that Oregon was given an F grade in a 2007 report on government transparency in the 50 states. The report notes,

Based on testimony submitted to Attorney General John Kroger in conjunction with public meetings across the state, many Oregonians who use the state’s Public Records Law to understand the activities of their government agree with that assessment. Oregon’s law is clogged with hundreds of confusing exemptions, and requests for records are often met with high fee requirements and long delays. After taking office last year, Attorney General Kroger determined that it was time to reform the Oregon Public  Records Law. He launched a systematic review to identify weak points and suggest improvements in time for the 2011 legislative session. In addition to a thorough review of state and federal sunshine laws, the Attorney General sponsored six public meetings across Oregon to gather suggestions for improving transparency from the public, government officials and the media. The  meetings were co‐sponsored by the Oregon Newspaper Publishersʹ Association. Audio recordings of those meetings are available on the Attorney General’s Web site: http://www.doj.state.or.us/public_records/government_transparency.shtml.

During this process, the Attorney General received hundreds of suggestions and comments. Most of the comments relate to one of  four areas of concern: timelines for responding to public records requests; fees; exemptions; and public meetings. Some  suggestions relate to other aspects of government transparency.

The report makes several recommendations based on these meetings:

1. Fees associated with public records requests. A reasonable and rational fee system is necessary. The report acknowledges that fees should not be so onerous as to discourage the public from making public records requests, but should reflect realistic compensation for the use of public resources in complying with requests.
2. Deadlines to respond. There is currently no statutory deadline to respond to a public records request. Deadlines are necessary to eliminate endless delays, but they must also be flexible enough to recognize the many priorities that government must balance.
3. Exemptions from sunshine laws. The steady growth of exemptions is perhaps the most vexing problem with the public records law. Not only are there too many exemptions but they are haphazardly scattered throughout state law and thus difficult to find. Seemingly similar types of  information may be subject to different rules depending on the particular language adopted by the legislature in a particular case. Any meaningful overhaul of Oregon’s public records law must reorganize and make coherent sense of the numerous exemptions. Some exemptions should be eliminated altogether.

Little public comment or reporting has been done since this report was released in 2010. AG Kroger resigned in 2012, and new AG Ellen Rosenblum has yet to release a followup report detailing progress on these recommendations.

The Sunshine Foundation reports that Oregon currently holds a C grade for transparency, although the metrics used to calculate the grade differ from the 2007 report giving Oregon an F. Nonetheless, this indicates some improvement.

The grading focused on six criteria: completeness, timeliness, ease of access, machine readability, use of commonly owned standards and permanence. Oregon was marked down on timeliness because the state updates its data online weekly.

“Legislative information is most relevant when it happens, and many states are publishing information in real time.” according to a post by the Sunlight Foundation in explaining the grading process. “Unfortunately, there are also states where updates are more infrequent and showing up days after a legislative action took place. States were dinged if data took more than 48 hours to go online.”

Oregon was average in every other category except permanence where it scored high, meaning the data is available in a permanent location and dates back a reasonable amount of time, according to the organization.

There are several online resources available to citizens who wish to know more about Oregon’s Sunshine Laws, or to put in a public records request:

The Oregon Blue Book

Oregon Transparency

The Oregon Attorney General – including a citizen’s guide to submitting public records requests

Sunshine Review

Open Oregon

Interested in writing for Watchdog Wire – Oregon? Sign up here!  If you have story ideas, tips or questions, use me as a resource.  I can be contacted at Oregon@WatchdogWire.com.  For ways to get started as a transparency watchdog, check out out tip sheet!

Jeff Fisher has been very open about his tracking and opposition research activities as a paid Democrat operative. His LinkedIn page publicly lists the following qualifications for future employers:

Experience

Research and Tracking Director

Democratic Party of Oregon

August 2011 – November 2012 (1 year 4 months)Portland, Oregon Area

-Conduct opposition research using internet and social media methodologies to develop concise and searchable tracking documents.

-Write detailed memos outlining opposition policy positions.

-Transcribe opposition media and public appearances.

-Record and edit video and audio for TV and internet advertising.

-Assist with Democratic Party coordinated campaigns – including competitive congressional seats, statewide offices, and Oregon Senate and House districts.

-Build, train, and oversee a network of volunteers across Oregon to assist with tracking duties.

Screen shots of the full entry at LinkedIn can be found by clicking here, here and here.

Interestingly, Fisher’s bio at Senator Burdick’s legislative webpage leaves that experience out:

Meet My Staff

I would like to take a moment to introduce my new staff for the 2013 Legislative Session.

Jeff Fisher – Chief of Staff
Jeff is a native Oregonian who has recently joined us from the Democratic Party of Oregon. Previously, Jeff has worked in the UK House of Commons as a press officer for Rosie Cooper MP and as a parliamentary intern for Shadow Minister, Mary Creagh MP. He graduated from the University of Leeds with a MA in Political Communication and Portland State University with a BS in Communication Studies.

Despite this omission, it’s implausible that Senator Burdick was unaware of Fisher’s resume when he was hired, or subsequently when she was seeking cover in the mainstream media for having ducked her constituents and fabricating an excuse for canceling her town hall meeting. Senator Burdick’s claims of victimhood ring hollow. We’ve previously reported on the intimidation and harassment tactics she’s employed against a political opponent who happened to be a state worker. We’ve also reported on the harassment and tracking behavior utilized by the blogger to whom she granted an interview to try to explain herself.

Now we know that Senator Burdick is not at all uncomfortable with trackers, citizen journalists or videos of public figures in casual situations.

It was merely a ploy to engender sympathy and detract from the real story.

Finally, the pearl clutching and finger wagging wouldn’t be complete without a coordinated smear campaign among the “real journalists”. Being just a blogger means that citizen journalists aren’t in the club, and when we do the job they are supposed to do, the target must be destroyed. Biased columnists are making this reporter the target instead of reporting on the real issue – the fact that a State Senator lied, admitted she lied, and clearly had no expectation that the mainstream media would hold her responsible. Otherwise she wouldn’t have felt so comfortable confessing to her fabrication when directly confronted by KOIN 6 news.

Yesterday we reported on the speculation that Sen. Burdick may not have been truthful in citing “scheduling conflicts” as a reason for canceling her Town Hall meeting on Monday, March 4. After our post and the embedded video from a citizen journalist gained significant attention in the media, Sen. Burdick admitted to news outlets that she fabricated the story, but claimed that she would not let gun rights supporters intimidate her.

The story has caused a firestorm in local media outlets. The story that ran at OregonLive has well over 700 comments in less than 24 hours. According to KATU News,

“I’ve had town halls crashed by the extremist gun lobbyists before,” she said. “They do not make life pleasant when they do that. They’re disruptive and rude, and I didn’t want to subject the students at Portland State to that kind of behavior.”

She said there will be other town hall meetings scheduled.

Burdick called the police after she saw the YouTube video.

Burdick’s claim of victimhood, however, is in contrast with her history. Timothy Dunn, a state worker with Oregon Department of Transportation, relates that in 2001, he faced harassment and intimidation at his work place at the hands of Senator Burdick:

I’m going to tell you a personal story of how Senator Burdick used her elected position in an attempt to intimidate and harass a State Employee who opposed her anti-gun views and anti-gun legislative agenda. This story also has to do with a pro-gun rally which was scheduled for Monday, April 23rd [2001] at the Oregon State Capital as well as subsequent events which involve Senator Ginny Burdick.

Because of my desire to attend the rally I made arrangements with my managers and supervisors, well ahead of the rally date, to take Monday, April 23rd off as a day of vacation. Being as I had vacation time coming this request was approved by my managers and supervisors well prior to the rally date.

At approximately 9:30 am Senator Burdick held a press conference. At the end of her presentation she opened it to questions. This Q&A period was stopped right after the second question was asked of her. Senator Burdick refused to answer any further questions.

At about 10:30 a.m. we disbanded with a positive feeling because very few Anti-gun people had showed up. Even the press had not shown up for Senator Burdick’s press conference.

I had thought that the events of that day were over. Little did I know that my exercise of my 1st Amendment Rights on the steps of the capital would result in Senator Ginny Burdick trying to bring the pressure of her office to bear on me via my workplace managers and supervisor.

I am employed by the Oregon Taxpayers at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). I work as a Information Systems Specialist and provide computer support for over 200 employees at ODOT. I have a personal web site which I maintain from my home that contains a link to my employer, ODOT. I am also proud of the fact that I work with a dedicated group of people and that is the reason for this link on my web site.

When I went to work on Tuesday, April 24th I was reminded by my Team leader Mark Robinson to make sure that I had filled in April 23rd as a vacation day. About 20 minutes later I asked Mark why he was reminding me to double check my timesheet because he had never done that before. Mark replied that “you are not supposed to tell anyone this but you pissed a State Senator off yesterday while you were at the rally”. I asked Mark “could that Senator be Ginny Burdick?” and Mark replied “yes”. I asked Mark how he knew this information and he replied “Senator Burdick called Dave White and wanted to know your status, whether or not you were on the clock or not”. Dave White is the Chief Information Officer for ODOT. Mark also stated “the Senator was very upset at Dave White for letting you have the day off to attend a rally”.

So for the rest of the day I kept this issue to myself until about 2 p.m. That afternoon when my manager Will Schlictman approached me and said “I hear that you like to piss Senators off”. I asked Will “I thought I wasn’t supposed to know about this”. When I explained what I was demonstrating about he did say “good to see you are doing something you believe in”. Will did not continue this conversation and I was not going to press it.

Whatever Senator Burdick’s reasons were for contacting my employer it had nothing to do with my status and everything to do with intimidation and abuse of my 1st Amendment rights to free speech!

In a nutshell: Senator Burdick used her position as a State Senator in an attempt to intimidate me through my employer. Senator Burdick can deny this event ever took place because she is a politician but my managers can not because they are employees of the state and making false statements is against policy.

Senator Burdick is not the only local figure who has no problem employing the harassing tactics she claims to abhor. I have been personally targeted by T.a. Barnhart, a progressive blogger at BlueOregon, after yesterday’s story ran here at WatchdogWire Oregon. While defending Senator Burdick’s honor and history of being responsive to her constituents in public meetings, T.a. writes of me,

Absent were the loudmouth, cowardly gunsters and political hacks now trying to accuse Sen Burdick of skipping a town hall meeting because she didn’t want to face opponents. Leading the pack is Jeff Reynolds, Chair of the Multnomah County Republican Party and one of the most irrelevant people in Oregon politics. Reynolds prefers to bully people on Twitter than be a productive activist in county politics (he’s “@ChargerJeff” if you want to catch his act). This video stunt is further proof of both his cowardice and pointlessness.

So T.a. made the story about myself and the supposed harassment of the Senator by the videographer. This is an especially rich irony, since I happen to know the campaign manager for a Republican who ran for the State House of Representatives in East Multnomah County in 2008. This campaign manager once caught T.a. Barnhart snooping around the Republican’s campaign office and making a spectacle of writing down license plate numbers of volunteers at the office. When the campaign manager confronted T.a. on this blatant attempt to intimidate and harass volunteers, he mumbled an excuse and scurried away.

The media firestorm surrounding this episode promises not to go away anytime soon. As a contributor on the blog 54°40’ Or Fight! notes,

Plays like this do little to engender sympathy for the Senator; as well, they serve to undermine her credibility. Her own history betrays her.

She got caught in a lie, so immediately plays the Sympathy card; claiming that somebody filming in a public place was attempting to intimidate or threaten her. They may even be mentally unstable. [read the full post here]

As of this writing, there is no announcement regarding the rescheduling of Ginny Burdick’s Town Hall meeting.

The Columbia River Crossing project is on a fast track in Salem, sent racing toward approval by its biggest backer, Gov. John Kitzhaber.

The governor—pushing a complex project with gaping financial holes—might someday wish things had gone at a more deliberate speed.

On Feb. 18, a joint House-Senate panel voted 14-2 to send a bill authorizing $450 million for the CRC to both chambers of the Oregon Legislature.

The $3.5 billion CRC promises to end congestion where Interstate 5 crosses the Columbia River. The project would also extend light rail to Vancouver and rebuild a series of highway offramps and exchanges, many of which would help the Port of Portland.

The Oregon bill counts on Washington state matching it with its own $450 million, and the federal government would need to pony up $1.25 billion.

The remainder—about $1.3 billion—would come from tolls, which commuters on the existing Interstate 5 Bridge could start paying as early as 2015.

But in July 2011, State Treasurer Ted Wheeler destroyed the project’s financial underpinnings: that there would be enough traffic to meet estimated toll revenues.

Read the full article: Making It Up As They Go: The plan to pay for the CRC is both fact and fantasy.