Some “back story” for those of you who may not have heard about the attempt of CRC to exclude as much public testimony as possible.

I arrived at the Port Building around 8:35 AM with Pam Naugle, a neighbor.  The sign in sheets and table were already in place, we both signed in.  Marcela Alcantar was also signing in.

The young man who was staffing the table asked us if we were going to testify, and we all said “Yes” and took the small testimony slips to fill out.  While doing so, we mentioned that we had come early to make sure that we would be first on the list to testify because we knew time would be limited.

The staffer, Dennis Sandstrom explained that there would be no order for testifying, “We’re going to put them all in this box, shuffle them around and then pick folks at random” was the explanation we were offered.  He went on to explain that the reason this method had been chosen was “It’s more democratic.”

I explained that I had a leadership position with the project (Co-Chair of the Hayden Island Plan Steering Committee, member of the Community & Environmental Justice Group) and he said that wouldn’t matter, that a decision had been made.   Several other persons were told this as well, all the way up to just before the meeting.

I called Mayor Adams and left a message for him, informing him of this issue, and also made a statement to the Channel 6.

When  the room opened up, the I heard CRC staff try to tell Channel 6 that they were not allowed to bring their cameras into the room.  I confirmed this with the cameraman on our way in, the news teams just ignored this “request” by CRC staff and went in to film anyway.

In addition, Sharon Nasset made an announcement in the room just before the meeting started, that our public testimony was being picked at random by the project

Because of the pressure exerted by all of us, and the presence of the media, the process was changed, and everyone got one minute to testify.  A staff person came to me and asked me to fill out a second slip, apparently the first one I filled out could not be found.

My name was called a second time at the very end of the testimony, but I had already spoken.  Ms. Nagle and Alcantar, the first two people to arrive, were among the last five to speak.

I share all of this because of the blatant attempt to manipulate public comment, circumvent democratic processes, and exclude the press from the meeting.  This is one more example of how CRC continues to circumvent democratic public processes in order to push through their agenda.

In the face of this, they wonder why increasing numbers of people have lost trust in the project, and are so angry about the process.

I hope that an investigation can be done to find out who at CRC ordered this protocol for the meeting, and that person can be censured in an appropriate manner, including prosecution of any laws that were broken. I am not a lawyer, but this could be considered “Conspiracy to obstruct Justice” or some other violation of public meeting laws.  Whoever ordered staff to do this needs to be held accountable, even if is just some time off without pay.

I am calling on our elected leaders to not just let this sweep under the rug, and let it go.  No matter what one’s position on the CRC, the decisions should not be made in an illegal manner, or one that specifically attempts to exclude public concern and testimony.

Regards,  Ed Garren, MA, LMFT

Candidate for Portland City Commission, seat #3

www.EdForPDX.com

503-922-0338

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to where we have never been.

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to w

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to where we have never been.

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

If only we could pass on wisdom as effectively as we pass on pathology.

The biggest challenge for a person or a society is to move from where we are,

to where we have never been.

ed@edgarren.us

www.edgarren.us

Posted in the Oregonian on 12/02/2009 by edgarren

December 02, 2009, 9:18AM in response to the article:

“Portland police commissioner explains turnabout on cop who fired beanbag round”

Link Below:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/12/portland_police_commissioner_e.html 

I worked with Law Enforcement agencies and have family members and friends who work in Law Enforcement, so while I am empathetic to how difficult and stressful the job is, how this all played out is unacceptable.

Turn the situation around, imagine a “suspect” who was acquitted of manslaughter, now involved in an assault case. “Where there is smoke, there is fire” is the usual comment. The police union is embarrassing itself, protecting someone who has been involved in two excessive force incidents.

Does anyone in the union realize that when the plaintiffs familes file lawsuits against the city and win that all of us pay for it, including them? Do they also realize that by strong arming the situation, they just further alienate citizens who feel “no confidence” with their ability to self regulate one of their own who has twice been involved in situations perceived to be excessive force, one of which related to someone’s death?

The initial decision to remove badge and firearm was reasonable and appropriate. This is the second questionable situation for the officer. That reality seems to be lost to the police union, and to Mr. Saltzman.

I also think the negotiations should have occurred BEFORE the initial decision was made. The public hates to see this sort of “flip/flop” and it does not bode well for the person doing it.

As for “de-escalation”, if a “no confidence” vote had been made, nothing would have happened afterward. There was no runaway train, the police department would not have evaporated. A disagreement would have been declared (which both sides are entitled to do) and life would have gone on the same for everyone, except that members of communities traditionally at odds with law enforcement would have felt some vindication, that finally someone was listening to them.

Our obsession with “let’s all just get along” and avoiding conflict at all costs is not serving us well with regard to law enforcement issues in the city. Sooner or later the buck stops somewhere, and I thought that is what we elect management to do, take the heat that goes along with doing the right thing, not the expedient thing.

Regards, Ed Garren
Candidate for PDX City Commission, seat #3

www.EdForPDX.com