Lane County District Attorney Thug, oops, I mean Doug Harcleroad is retiring after only 25 years of public service. His right (and I do mean right!) hand man (and I do mean hand man!) Alex Gardner will fill his alligator skin shoes the same day Obama fills dubya’s. Alex Gardner received a whopping 35.7% of the vote in the primary in May.
In contrast to the other shysters, oops, I mean lawyers running unopposed for public office (AG-elect Kroger, Supreme Court Justice Walters, Appeals Court Judge Sercombe, Circuit Court Judge Kasubhai), Mr. Gardner’s name did not even appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot Lane County ballot.
Although they allege that they are non-partisan on the ballot, thankfully-soon-to-be-former-district-attorney Harcleroad, unfortunately-soon-to-be-district-attorney Gardner and unopposed incumbent Sheriff Russ Burglar, oops, I mean Burger are brazen Republicans, publicly rubbing cajones with former KEZI newscaster Rick Dancer at the coming out party for his unsuccessful bid to be Secretary of State along with self-proclaimed Republicans such as soon-to-be-former LaMe County Commissioner Bobby Green “and Yellow”, Eugene City Councilors Mike Clark and George Poling and Jackass Roberts, an obese thug in the Eugene Chamber of Commerce. (Rick Dancer for Secretary of State - because when it comes right down for it, what more do you want from a Secretary of State than “looks good in fishnets” and “gives good tete”!)
Despite having a quarter of a century to practice, Mr. Harcleroad has never quite nailed the concept of “probable cause”. Mr. Harcleroad presses unjustified charges on left wing activists (Jeff Luers, Ian Van Ornum, Anthony Farley, David Parziale) and fails to press charges against police officers (Judd Warden, Roger Magana, Juan Lara, Jimmie McBride, Robert Lehner, Thad Buchanan, Mel Thompson, David Clements, Shawn Trotter, Bill Solesbee) who almost certainly committed misdemeanors or felonies while on duty.
Mr. Harcleroad goes easy on drunk drivers such as Puke, oops, I mean Luke Belotti, Aaron Heyer (murderer of Tim Reams [hat tip to Eugene Police Commissioner/Taylor's Bar Owner upChuck Hare!]), Robert Berryhill (murderer of Lucy Lahr) and Lee Stubbs (murderer of Katie Lovelace).
Mr. Harcleroad goes easy on felonious ducks such as Puke Belotti or the dead-pig kickers (Eddie Pleasant, Darron Thomas and Jamere Thomas) who injured a young mother and recklessly endangered the welfare of a 1-year old.
Why does Mr. Harcleroad fail to take action against obviously felonious pigs and ducks and take unjustified legal action against activists and pacifists? Because Mr. Harcleroad relies on throbbable cause instead of probable cause in deciding whether to initiate legal action against a resident of or visitor to Lane County, Oregon. Ducks and pigs make D.A. Doug’s REDACT throb. Liberal activists don’t.
Hopefully Mr. Gardner did not mishear the teacher in law skool the day they did probable cause the way his men (and I do mean men!) tor did.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
calling comrades
to the two men sitting behind me on United/Skywest REDACT from San Francisco to Eugene this afternoon or the stewardess. or actually anyone on the flight that was delayed for an ephing hour because United/Skywest lacked the personnel to transport the jet from some remote location to Gate 76B. The Chico (tweako) flight that was scheduled to depart after the Eugene flight departed prior to the Eugene flight that left an HOUR late on the Saturday morning after Thanksgiving because no one at SFO could drive the ephing puddle jumper to the gate. In fact, no one could put fuel in the frigging jet while it was waiting in this remote location - after it arrived, we waited a few minutes longer for the United SFO ground crew to pour dead dinosaurs into the coagulated metal progeny of Wilbur and Orville Wright. How the Wright brothers could turn out to be so wrong is the topic for another day.
Today's topic is that I would love love love to hear from either of the hombres sitting in row 2 with whom I chatted about the benefits and beauty of stand up comedy.
If Thug, oops, Doug Harcleroad doesn't make your skin crawl......you need new skin!
When Bev Smith says Screw the beavers.......she means it!
Today's topic is that I would love love love to hear from either of the hombres sitting in row 2 with whom I chatted about the benefits and beauty of stand up comedy.
If Thug, oops, Doug Harcleroad doesn't make your skin crawl......you need new skin!
When Bev Smith says Screw the beavers.......she means it!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
cahoots
At many Eugene Police Commission: Mental Health Crisis Response subcommittee meetings, someone from the Eugene Police Department or the progressive mental health care community noted that law enforcement personnel are increasingly asked to deal with situations that previously would have been handled by social service personnel. [EPC: MHCR was created in response to the death of Ryan Salisbury as the result of being hit with 3/5 .223 caliber bullets fired at him on his front lawn from an AR-15 assault rifle held by EPD Officer Shawn Trotter on November 14, 2006.]
As preventive and protective services have been cut in Lane County, Eugene and Springfield police officers and Lane County Sheriff’s deputies have been forced to step in to fill the gap. Many EPD officers, commanding officers and civilian support staff as well as progressive mental health activists have noted that CAHOOTS is extremely cost-effective at providing emergency mental health care services in Lane County.
Today, I observed firsthand the collaboration between EPD and Cahoots. Two EPD officers had just finished lunch at the Burrito Boy on W. 11^th at about 2:00. When they went back to their patrol car, they encountered a distressed, disabled man in an electric wheelchair. I am not sure if they were alerted to the presence of the man by their radio or whether the man approached them just as they were getting into their car to leave the parking lot. All I know is that after the two officers finished their lunch, they stood in the parking lot for 15-20 minutes assisting this man.
I must have looked out the window right when the two officers approached the man in the wheelchair. My memory is that both officers took out flashlights for reasons that still escape me. I am 100% sure that the dark-haired, stockier, gruffer officer removed his flashlight from its holster behind his back because I can still see him replacing the flashlight in the holster. I am 95% sure that the thin, blond crew-cutted [Ben Hall?], bespectacled, professorial EPD officer also had his flashlight out for a brief period of time.
The odd behavior of removing long-barreled flashlights to deal with an extremely disabled (cerebral palsy?) man in extreme cognitive/emotional distress in broad (albeit foggy) daylight stunned me. The blond officer dialed the man’s cell phone and held it for him to have a conversation with someone. I think that prior to dialing the man’s cell phone and holding it for him, the blond officer dialed the phone and talked himself.
About 20 minutes later, Cahoots arrived and the EPD officers left. The two men in the brand new van stood and talked to the man who must have been pretty cold since it was very chilly today. When I left, they were still in the parking lot and I do not know what the resolution was.
At the time, I was puzzled by the flashlights. In hindsight, I’m wondering why EPD officers A and B needed to borrow the man’s cell phone to call CAHOOTS.
I think the patrol number was 251. The license was 240184.
As preventive and protective services have been cut in Lane County, Eugene and Springfield police officers and Lane County Sheriff’s deputies have been forced to step in to fill the gap. Many EPD officers, commanding officers and civilian support staff as well as progressive mental health activists have noted that CAHOOTS is extremely cost-effective at providing emergency mental health care services in Lane County.
Today, I observed firsthand the collaboration between EPD and Cahoots. Two EPD officers had just finished lunch at the Burrito Boy on W. 11^th at about 2:00. When they went back to their patrol car, they encountered a distressed, disabled man in an electric wheelchair. I am not sure if they were alerted to the presence of the man by their radio or whether the man approached them just as they were getting into their car to leave the parking lot. All I know is that after the two officers finished their lunch, they stood in the parking lot for 15-20 minutes assisting this man.
I must have looked out the window right when the two officers approached the man in the wheelchair. My memory is that both officers took out flashlights for reasons that still escape me. I am 100% sure that the dark-haired, stockier, gruffer officer removed his flashlight from its holster behind his back because I can still see him replacing the flashlight in the holster. I am 95% sure that the thin, blond crew-cutted [Ben Hall?], bespectacled, professorial EPD officer also had his flashlight out for a brief period of time.
The odd behavior of removing long-barreled flashlights to deal with an extremely disabled (cerebral palsy?) man in extreme cognitive/emotional distress in broad (albeit foggy) daylight stunned me. The blond officer dialed the man’s cell phone and held it for him to have a conversation with someone. I think that prior to dialing the man’s cell phone and holding it for him, the blond officer dialed the phone and talked himself.
About 20 minutes later, Cahoots arrived and the EPD officers left. The two men in the brand new van stood and talked to the man who must have been pretty cold since it was very chilly today. When I left, they were still in the parking lot and I do not know what the resolution was.
At the time, I was puzzled by the flashlights. In hindsight, I’m wondering why EPD officers A and B needed to borrow the man’s cell phone to call CAHOOTS.
I think the patrol number was 251. The license was 240184.
roundupgate update #n
Day Owen can’t say for certain that he’s off the hook, but it appears that may be the case.
Six months ago, Eugene police and federal agents accused Owen, 50, of organizing and causing trouble at an anti-pesticide rally that ended abruptly when officers arrested him and two University of Oregon students.
The event is remembered mostly because officers used a Taser stun gun — some witnesses say improperly — to subdue one of the students, Ian Van Ornum.
But while Van Ornum, 19, and two others now face criminal charges in connection with the May 30 rally in downtown Eugene, Owen does not.
Lane County prosecutors aren’t saying Owen has been cleared of any wrongdoing. But they apparently haven’t developed enough information to formally allege that the organic farmer from Greenleaf should be charged with a crime.
“We ran this through a grand jury, and three different people were indicted,” District Attorney Doug Harcleroad said.
“I don’t have a comment one way or another about” whether Owen may face charges in the future, Harcleroad said. “What I will say is that the statute of limitations on felonies is three years, and on misdemeanors it’s two years.”
From the start, Owen has insisted that he was wrongfully arrested on suspicion of resisting arrest, interfering with police and disorderly conduct.
What bothers him just as much is a June 2 e-mail in which former Eugene Police Chief Robert Lehner told the City Council that Owen was arrested after he and another person attacked the officers who arrested Van Ornum.
Owen says that didn’t happen, and that the accusation has harmed his reputation.
“People in my community read about that, and some of them are still under the impression that I’m a very volatile person who would attack police officers,” Owen said. “That’s not who I am.”
Another police assertion — which appears to have turned out to be false — is that Owen’s anti-pesticide group, The Pitchfork Rebellion, organized the May 30 rally.
In fact, the event was advertised in advance as being sponsored by a UO student organization known as Crazy People for Wild Places. Van Ornum is a member of that group.
But in police reports provided to Owen by investigators, Federal Protective Service agents Tom Keedy and William Turner identified Owen’s group as staging the rally. Owen said he was merely a speaker at the event in Kesey Square.
Keedy states in his report that he was secretly monitoring the rally from an unmarked vehicle, and called Eugene police after seeing Van Ornum walking in the intersection of Broadway and Willamette Street while spraying “an unknown fluid” around vehicles.
The fluid was water, and Van Ornum had donned an exterminator’s outfit for the rally as part of a street theater act designed to point out dangers associated with pesticide use.
After Eugene police arrived and arrested Van Ornum, Owen said he jogged up to them and asked why they were treating the UO student so roughly.
Owen said a Eugene officer slammed him to the ground, which caused Owen to briefly lose consciousness.
Keedy’s report states that Owen was arrested about 10 minutes later and that he resisted being taken into custody.
Owen denies that, as well.
After police interviewed him, Owen said he was taken to the Lane County Jail, where a deputy treated him harshly.
He said he was released about seven hours later, after a jail nurse witnessed him vomiting blood and recommended he go to a hospital emergency room. Owen provided to The Register-Guard that nurse’s written recommendation for outside medical attention.
Rather than go to the hospital, Owen went home that night because he feared he would be re-arrested once released from the hospital. “I just wanted to get out of town as fast as I could that day,” he said.
Owen said he suffers nagging back pain and headaches since his arrest, but has little interest in suing police for wrongful arrest or mistreatment. However, he would gladly testify at Van Ornum’s trial if asked.
“I have no idea if they intend to call me, but if they do, I would love to testify,” Owen said. “I can’t say anything about what happened while I was knocked out, but up until then I had a pretty good bird’s-eye view of things.”
Owen is hopeful that officials with Eugene’s police oversight system fully investigate his complaint that officers used excessive force when they arrested him.
Interim city Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds said his claim will be reviewed by the police department after criminal cases involving Van Ornum and the other two people charged in connection with the rally wrap up.
The Owen complaint will be investigated alongside Van Ornum’s complaint that officers unjustly deployed a Taser stun gun to arrest him.
“The witnesses (to both Van Ornum’s and Owen’s arrests) are the same,” Reynolds said in explaining why the complaint Owen filed against police won’t be completed until after the criminal process plays out.
Prosecutors don’t want officers who were involved in the rally arrests to speak to police investigators about the cases until after they go to court because they fear completion of the city’s probe could jeopardize the criminal cases.
Owen said his attorney, Lauren Regan of Eugene, has warned him against speaking publicly about his claims that he was mistreated and mischaracterized by police because the possibility remains that he could ultimately face charges.
“I’m willing to risk it because I think if a judge and jury heard my case, I’d have a good chance,” Owen said. “I think it would be tough for them to nail me.”
Six months ago, Eugene police and federal agents accused Owen, 50, of organizing and causing trouble at an anti-pesticide rally that ended abruptly when officers arrested him and two University of Oregon students.
The event is remembered mostly because officers used a Taser stun gun — some witnesses say improperly — to subdue one of the students, Ian Van Ornum.
But while Van Ornum, 19, and two others now face criminal charges in connection with the May 30 rally in downtown Eugene, Owen does not.
Lane County prosecutors aren’t saying Owen has been cleared of any wrongdoing. But they apparently haven’t developed enough information to formally allege that the organic farmer from Greenleaf should be charged with a crime.
“We ran this through a grand jury, and three different people were indicted,” District Attorney Doug Harcleroad said.
“I don’t have a comment one way or another about” whether Owen may face charges in the future, Harcleroad said. “What I will say is that the statute of limitations on felonies is three years, and on misdemeanors it’s two years.”
From the start, Owen has insisted that he was wrongfully arrested on suspicion of resisting arrest, interfering with police and disorderly conduct.
What bothers him just as much is a June 2 e-mail in which former Eugene Police Chief Robert Lehner told the City Council that Owen was arrested after he and another person attacked the officers who arrested Van Ornum.
Owen says that didn’t happen, and that the accusation has harmed his reputation.
“People in my community read about that, and some of them are still under the impression that I’m a very volatile person who would attack police officers,” Owen said. “That’s not who I am.”
Another police assertion — which appears to have turned out to be false — is that Owen’s anti-pesticide group, The Pitchfork Rebellion, organized the May 30 rally.
In fact, the event was advertised in advance as being sponsored by a UO student organization known as Crazy People for Wild Places. Van Ornum is a member of that group.
But in police reports provided to Owen by investigators, Federal Protective Service agents Tom Keedy and William Turner identified Owen’s group as staging the rally. Owen said he was merely a speaker at the event in Kesey Square.
Keedy states in his report that he was secretly monitoring the rally from an unmarked vehicle, and called Eugene police after seeing Van Ornum walking in the intersection of Broadway and Willamette Street while spraying “an unknown fluid” around vehicles.
The fluid was water, and Van Ornum had donned an exterminator’s outfit for the rally as part of a street theater act designed to point out dangers associated with pesticide use.
After Eugene police arrived and arrested Van Ornum, Owen said he jogged up to them and asked why they were treating the UO student so roughly.
Owen said a Eugene officer slammed him to the ground, which caused Owen to briefly lose consciousness.
Keedy’s report states that Owen was arrested about 10 minutes later and that he resisted being taken into custody.
Owen denies that, as well.
After police interviewed him, Owen said he was taken to the Lane County Jail, where a deputy treated him harshly.
He said he was released about seven hours later, after a jail nurse witnessed him vomiting blood and recommended he go to a hospital emergency room. Owen provided to The Register-Guard that nurse’s written recommendation for outside medical attention.
Rather than go to the hospital, Owen went home that night because he feared he would be re-arrested once released from the hospital. “I just wanted to get out of town as fast as I could that day,” he said.
Owen said he suffers nagging back pain and headaches since his arrest, but has little interest in suing police for wrongful arrest or mistreatment. However, he would gladly testify at Van Ornum’s trial if asked.
“I have no idea if they intend to call me, but if they do, I would love to testify,” Owen said. “I can’t say anything about what happened while I was knocked out, but up until then I had a pretty good bird’s-eye view of things.”
Owen is hopeful that officials with Eugene’s police oversight system fully investigate his complaint that officers used excessive force when they arrested him.
Interim city Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds said his claim will be reviewed by the police department after criminal cases involving Van Ornum and the other two people charged in connection with the rally wrap up.
The Owen complaint will be investigated alongside Van Ornum’s complaint that officers unjustly deployed a Taser stun gun to arrest him.
“The witnesses (to both Van Ornum’s and Owen’s arrests) are the same,” Reynolds said in explaining why the complaint Owen filed against police won’t be completed until after the criminal process plays out.
Prosecutors don’t want officers who were involved in the rally arrests to speak to police investigators about the cases until after they go to court because they fear completion of the city’s probe could jeopardize the criminal cases.
Owen said his attorney, Lauren Regan of Eugene, has warned him against speaking publicly about his claims that he was mistreated and mischaracterized by police because the possibility remains that he could ultimately face charges.
“I’m willing to risk it because I think if a judge and jury heard my case, I’d have a good chance,” Owen said. “I think it would be tough for them to nail me.”
recovered memory
Over the last few weeks, I have repeated a joke (mostly in emails, but sometimes verbally) that I read on eugene craiglist rants and raves. a cousin of the joke is
what do you call 6 million lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
a good start!
i will not repeat the joke here but i love this joke so much that i wonder if maybe i did not post it on eugene craigslist myself and then repress the memory so i would not have to taker responsibility for it.
if anyone out there claims to be the true and rightful creator of the original 6 million ashtray joke, speak now or forever hold your pizza!
what do you call 6 million lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
a good start!
i will not repeat the joke here but i love this joke so much that i wonder if maybe i did not post it on eugene craigslist myself and then repress the memory so i would not have to taker responsibility for it.
if anyone out there claims to be the true and rightful creator of the original 6 million ashtray joke, speak now or forever hold your pizza!
Monday, November 24, 2008
nilap effect
palin effect: saturday night live devolves from brazen liberal subversive force to bizarro post-modernist palin-obsessed but obama-loving propaganda. i think.
nilap effect: real life devolves into a saturday night live skit.
WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush has granted pardons to 14 individuals and commuted the prison sentences of two others, The Associated Press learned Monday. The new round of White House pardons are Bush's first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list include drug offenses, income tax evasion, bank embezzlement and violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Forget about "save the spotted owl." Dubya's all about forgiving bald men who illegally murdered the bald eagles murderers and absolving bank embezzlers (e.g., stock brokers, government economists, academic economists) of any responsibility for crimes against humanity.
You couldn't write a joke as funny as this.
nilap effect: real life devolves into a saturday night live skit.
WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush has granted pardons to 14 individuals and commuted the prison sentences of two others, The Associated Press learned Monday. The new round of White House pardons are Bush's first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list include drug offenses, income tax evasion, bank embezzlement and violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Forget about "save the spotted owl." Dubya's all about forgiving bald men who illegally murdered the bald eagles murderers and absolving bank embezzlers (e.g., stock brokers, government economists, academic economists) of any responsibility for crimes against humanity.
You couldn't write a joke as funny as this.
Friday, November 21, 2008
javelina hunting
A few months ago, I learned from the Eugene Police Department Internal Affairs report that an EPD officer had resigned after receiving two DUI convictions in another jurisdiction. A month ago, I asked the city manager for a list of all EPD officers who'd resigned in 2008. Today, I got the list.
Dustin Ballard
Ryan Bloodworth
Sean Brathwaite
Michael Lee
Ryan Mills
Brandon Nicol
Which one of these former tracktown javelinas has two drunk driving convictions?
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!
riverside review board
looks like the Snivilian Review Board in riverside is just as impotent and silly as the one in Eugene!
it's the COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY who is responsible for taking action against police officers who assault handcuffed civilians like EPD Officers Jimmie "Magana" McBride, Judd Warden and the murderous officer described below.
http://harbaughboyz.blogspot.com/2008/10/jimmie-magana-mcbride-epd.html
http://harbaughboyz.blogspot.com/2008/11/thug-harcleroad.html
Riverside police review board votes to go ahead with inquiry
10:00 PM PST on Thursday, November 20, 2008
By SONJA BJELLAND
The Press-Enterprise
City officials have reaffirmed their stance that the commission
tasked with investigating and reviewing officer-involved deaths is not
allowed to do so until law enforcement has finished its analysis.
On Wednesday, the Community Police Review Commission voted 5-1 to
begin investigations into three recent officer-involved deaths that are still open.
Again Thursday, commission Manager Kevin Rogan said he could not
begin the investigations because City Hall will not fund them until law enforcement ends its investigation. That can take more than six months.
This goes against the Community Police Review Commission protocol since 2002.
Some feel it impairs the board's ability to fulfill its duty in the City Charter to investigate and review such deaths.
Some City Council members would like to see the issue discussed
publicly either in committee or with the full council. Others said the
council has already spoken in support of the directive delaying the
investigations.
The schism began in July with the death of a man who had been
handcuffed. Because it was not obviously a death caused by police, such as an officer-involved shooting, and was declared a death by natural causes, a debate ensued as to if it was in the commission's purview.
The commission voted to conduct an investigation to find out if it
was officer-related against the wishes of City Attorney Greg Priamos.
Since it was ruled a death by natural causes, the commission has
gone back and forth with city officials in an attempt to discern the
impact of the directive.
Shortly after the dispute began, the commissioners realized that
their protocol of beginning an investigation when the death was
publicly reported was not a written policy.
Then the city imposed the directive stating that the city would not
fund investigations until the police casebook had been turned over to
the city staff.
The commission then voted to request a response from the majority of the council.
That ended with Mayor Ron Loveridge and Mayor Pro Tem Rusty Bailey
writing a letter requesting the commission follow the 2001 written
policy that investigations will commence after the law enforcement
investigation concludes.
The item was never requested for the City Council agenda.
That led commissioners to write a letter to the mayor and council
outlining their concerns and the conundrum of being instructed by the
charter to investigate and review such deaths and then having an order
from the city saying to wait on the investigations.
"No reasonable justification has or can be provided to cause the
Commission to wait more than six months (long after memories have
started to fade and contract trails have time to go stale) before it
can act, as it is duty-bound to do under the Charter," Chairman Brian
Pearcy wrote in the letter filed with the council Friday.
Before Wednesday's commission meeting, Pearcy was called by Bailey
and told the letter had been reviewed by the mayor and City Council and that it is being treated as "received and filed."
On Thursday, Bailey said most council members he spoke to read it and agreed.
He said he did not remember which council members he spoke with. "We
understand we've given them enough direction," Bailey said Thursday.
Councilmen Andy Melendrez and Mike Gardner, a former commissioner,
said they were not aware of Bailey's response and would like to see the issue discussed at the council committee level for clarification.
Reach Sonja Bjelland at 951-368-9642 or sbjelland@PE.com
it's the COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY who is responsible for taking action against police officers who assault handcuffed civilians like EPD Officers Jimmie "Magana" McBride, Judd Warden and the murderous officer described below.
http://harbaughboyz.blogspot.com/2008/10/jimmie-magana-mcbride-epd.html
http://harbaughboyz.blogspot.com/2008/11/thug-harcleroad.html
Riverside police review board votes to go ahead with inquiry
10:00 PM PST on Thursday, November 20, 2008
By SONJA BJELLAND
The Press-Enterprise
City officials have reaffirmed their stance that the commission
tasked with investigating and reviewing officer-involved deaths is not
allowed to do so until law enforcement has finished its analysis.
On Wednesday, the Community Police Review Commission voted 5-1 to
begin investigations into three recent officer-involved deaths that are still open.
Again Thursday, commission Manager Kevin Rogan said he could not
begin the investigations because City Hall will not fund them until law enforcement ends its investigation. That can take more than six months.
This goes against the Community Police Review Commission protocol since 2002.
Some feel it impairs the board's ability to fulfill its duty in the City Charter to investigate and review such deaths.
Some City Council members would like to see the issue discussed
publicly either in committee or with the full council. Others said the
council has already spoken in support of the directive delaying the
investigations.
The schism began in July with the death of a man who had been
handcuffed. Because it was not obviously a death caused by police, such as an officer-involved shooting, and was declared a death by natural causes, a debate ensued as to if it was in the commission's purview.
The commission voted to conduct an investigation to find out if it
was officer-related against the wishes of City Attorney Greg Priamos.
Since it was ruled a death by natural causes, the commission has
gone back and forth with city officials in an attempt to discern the
impact of the directive.
Shortly after the dispute began, the commissioners realized that
their protocol of beginning an investigation when the death was
publicly reported was not a written policy.
Then the city imposed the directive stating that the city would not
fund investigations until the police casebook had been turned over to
the city staff.
The commission then voted to request a response from the majority of the council.
That ended with Mayor Ron Loveridge and Mayor Pro Tem Rusty Bailey
writing a letter requesting the commission follow the 2001 written
policy that investigations will commence after the law enforcement
investigation concludes.
The item was never requested for the City Council agenda.
That led commissioners to write a letter to the mayor and council
outlining their concerns and the conundrum of being instructed by the
charter to investigate and review such deaths and then having an order
from the city saying to wait on the investigations.
"No reasonable justification has or can be provided to cause the
Commission to wait more than six months (long after memories have
started to fade and contract trails have time to go stale) before it
can act, as it is duty-bound to do under the Charter," Chairman Brian
Pearcy wrote in the letter filed with the council Friday.
Before Wednesday's commission meeting, Pearcy was called by Bailey
and told the letter had been reviewed by the mayor and City Council and that it is being treated as "received and filed."
On Thursday, Bailey said most council members he spoke to read it and agreed.
He said he did not remember which council members he spoke with. "We
understand we've given them enough direction," Bailey said Thursday.
Councilmen Andy Melendrez and Mike Gardner, a former commissioner,
said they were not aware of Bailey's response and would like to see the issue discussed at the council committee level for clarification.
Reach Sonja Bjelland at 951-368-9642 or sbjelland@PE.com
Thursday, November 20, 2008
river road cancer cluster
On November 19, 2008 at the Red Cross on Bethel Road, Jae Douglas, MSW, Ph.D., an epidemiologist on the Environmental Health Assessment Program (EHAP) Team at the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) discussed a 42 page report dated July 14, 2008 entitled “Health Consultation: Cancer Investigation for Three Neighborhoods Surrounding J. H. Baxter & Company and Other Industrial Sites, Eugene, Oregon, EPA Facility ID: ORD009032400.”
The report was “prepared by Oregon Department of Human Services Under Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.” It was written by Dr. Douglas, Kathryn Toepel, MS, Sujata Joshi, MSPH and Julie Early-Alberts, MS at ODHS/EHAP and “certified” by Alan Crawford and Alan Yarbrough, MS at USDHHS/ATSDR. It is a revision of the report that was distributed at a May 17, 2007 meeting at the same location at which Dr. Douglas was accompanied by Lane County Public Health Officer Dr. Sarah Hendrickson as well as representatives from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and (I think) USDHHS/ATSDR.
I have mocked the Eugene Police Department and Eugene Police Commission for generating (e.g., CIT report prepared by EPC co-chair/Crest Elementary School Principal Alsup, 6 month Taser analysis prepared by EPD Planner Phelps) and purchasing (e.g., retired McMinnville, OR police chief Rod Brown’s $25K analysis of Lara/Magana tragedy; Magellan staffing report written by Eric Fritsch and Robert Taylor at the University of North Texas) pseudoscientific reports.
The July 14, 2008 EHAP cancer cluster investigation is not pseudoscience – it’s real science. I have studied cancer clusters in Fallon, Nevada and Sierra Vista, Arizona and this report is by far, the best cancer cluster study I’ve ever seen. [I criticized the CDC’s approach to cancer clusters in this February 12, 2004 article by Renee Downing in the Tucson Weekly.]
Unfortunately, “best cancer cluster study” is a dubious compliment, sort of like “most sober Belotti.”
The summary of the July 14, 2008 report begins (p. 4):
“The Environmental Health Assessment Program (EHAP), part of the Oregon Department of Human Services Public Health Division, developed this health consultation in response to a request from residents of the Bethel, River Road and Trainsong neighborhoods in northwest Eugene, Oregon. These densely populated neighborhoods border the J.H. Baxter wood treatment plant and are near several other industrial sites. Residents were concerned about the possible health impacts from contaminants released by these businesses.”
There are two strange things about this introduction.
1. There is no mention of the Union Pacific Railroad, which everyone admits is a primary source of carcinogenic compounds in the air and groundwater in the area in question. Indeed on page 7, the authors note “Several other industrial sites also exist near residents’ homes in or near the Bethel, River Road, and Trainsong neighborhoods (Figure 1), including Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), many of which release chemicals in the area that are known or suspected carcinogens. Although there are many sources of contamination in these neighborhoods, we are unable to draw conclusions about the public health impacts from the individual or collective contaminant sources at this time.”
Lumping “Union Pacific Railroad” into “other industrial sites” is very misleading but fortunately, had no adverse effect on the design of the study.
2. Usually, in cases of suspected cancer clusters, it’s the county public health official who contacts the state epidemiologist, perhaps after being alerted by the city council or county commissioners. But it appears that neither the Eugene City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners nor the Lane County Public Health Officer cared enough to take action. The residents contacted EHAP themselves. That’s an amazing black eye for the ECC, LCBC and LCPHO.
“While collecting community concerns about the J.H. Baxter site in 2003, EHAP was petitioned by community members living in this area to investigate the incidence of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and brain cancer. Residents were concerned that there were excess rates of these two types of cancers, possibly caused by contaminants released from the wood treatment facility along with the other nearby industries.”
Although Dr. Douglas has a Ph.D. in epidemiology and years of experience working for the state of Oregon, she chose to defer to community members in deciding which types of cancer to study. Since the residents were concerned with AML and “brain” cancer, that’s what she studied. This is unbelievable – instead of taking an evidence-based approach to the question of what types of cancer would be expected if the creosote and pentachlorophenol used as preservatives at J. H. Baxter and/or the diesel fumes emitted from UPRR were adversely affecting the residents, she decided to rely on the pet theories of the citizens who alerted her office to the cluster!
On page 7-8, it says:
“Residents’ specific concerns related to a potential cancer cluster stemmed from a number of AML cases within a small area in the Bethel neighborhood. Residents also learned about what seemed to them an unusual number of brain cancer cases in the neighborhood. Because of the odors from J.H. Baxter and knowledge about chemicals released by the different industrial sites, residents came to believe that these cancer cases were related to environmental exposures. This document is intended to address some of those concerns.”
While one would hope that the document would address the question of whether the rates of environmentally sensitive cancers (e.g., AML and other lymphomas/leukemias) are elevated in the Trainsong, River Road and Bethel neighborhoods, the document was focused on addressing the specific residents’ specific concerns. This borders on pseudoscience, especially when you realize that the EHAP researchers didn’t just focus on AML and brain cancer (as requested by the residents who contacted EHAP!) but on their own initiative, the EHAP team members added lung cancer but not any other cancers known to be sensitive to industrial pollutants (e.g., acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL)).
As Dr. Douglas and Ms. Joshi noted in their interview with KEZI news, an elevated rate of lung cancer is not very informative about the role of industrial pollutant-carcinogens in a neighborhood with a high frequency of smokers. I hadn’t realized that like lung cancer, the risk of AML is much higher for smokers than for non-smokers. That is, of the three types of cancer studied, one isn’t very environmentally sensitive (brain cancer) and the other two are caused both by industrial contaminants and by smoking (lung cancer, acute myeloid leukemia). That is, the five year ($x million) study was destined from the get-go to be utterly uninformative about the question of whether the ongoing pollution from J.H. Baxter, Union Pacific Railroad and other industries in the area has caused AND CONTINUES TO CAUSE adverse health effects in the residents of the area.
The 18 page report is followed by 8 pages of comments by the one citizen who provided public comment when it was allowed in April, 2007 and responses from EHAP. On page 22 (Comment I), it says:
“EHAP needs to investigate the potential common environmental exposures that might contribute to this cancer cluster –and not just benzene, but formaldehyde, PAHs, and other potential leukemogens…Weyerhaeuser MDF (just west of the western boundary of census tract 43) emitted 135, 859 pounds of formaldehyde in 2002 –making it one of the largest emitters to air of the chemical of all TRI-reporting facilities in the US. This facility and its pollution would seem a potential “culprit” contributing to risk of AML in tract 43 (Bethel) residents.”
So there are three smoking guns (Baxter, Union Pacific and Weyerhaeuser) with very deep pockets and three types of cancer that are elevated (brain, lung, AML). But the summary of the EHAP report ends like this (p. 5):
“In conclusion, EHAP identified statistical elevations of AML and brain and lung cancers in the Bethel, River Road and Trainsong neighborhoods. It is likely, given the known risk factors for these cancers, that many of these cases arose from the effects of tobacco use. Because of limited information on individual case histories and environmental exposures, EHAP is unable to determine the role that environmental contaminants from a single or multiple sources might have played in these apparent clusters.
EHAP considers tobacco smoke to be an important environmental contaminant and a major risk factor for cancer, and recommends the implementation or expansion of tobacco prevention and cessation programs in these neighborhoods. EHAP also recommends the review of available air monitoring data to determine if they can be used to evaluate health risks related to environmental exposure in these neighborhoods.”
Unbelievably, the EHAP team confirms the existence of a cancer cluster in Bethel, Trainsong and River Road but instead of pointing a finger at Baxter, Union Pacific and Weyerhaeuser, it blames the victims for choosing to smoke products manufactured and marketed by Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds.
On page 7, the EHAP researchers state “The chemical compounds used as preservatives at J.H.Baxter include pentachlorophenol, creosote and ammonia copper zinc arsenate (ACZA). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), a primary constitutent of creosote, have been associated with lung and nasal cancer.”
On pages 22-23, the public commenter states “The years 2002-2004 (when AML rates were high) also correlate with a period when there were a high number of odor complaints about J.H. Baxter. Baxter’s odors are assumed to correlate with naphthalene content of the emissions. Naphthalene is also used as a surrogate for measuring total PAHs, suspected to cause cancer, including leukemia.”
A comparison of the comments on page 7 to those on pages 22-23 suggests that the EHAP team omitted the fact that the chemicals used at Baxter are known to cause leukemia as well as lung cancer.
Bottom line: The pollution from Baxter contains a class of chemicals known to cause both lung cancer and AML. There are elevated rates of lung cancer and AML in the area. But the pollution from cigarettes also contains chemicals known to increase the risk both lung cancer and AML. Hence the conundrum.
EHAP’s response to the conundrum is “let’s gather more data.” But if you look at the first chart in Appendix B on page 32 that describes the frequency of AML from 1996-2004, you might question this response. The frequency of AML seems to be increasing. From 1996-2000, there were 2 cases of AML. From 2000-2004 there were 8 cases. The rate of AML from 2000-2004 is four times the rate of AML from 1996-2000. [I used the year 2000 twice so that both ranges would have five years.]
The EHAP researchers acknowledge this terrifying possibility on page 5. They write:
“When the analysis was restricted to the period 2002-2004, the number of observed cases in census tract 43 was significantly above the number expected. Because this might represent the early development of a cluster, cases of AML in census tract 43 will be monitored using 2005 and 2006 data.”
If the use of the term “development of a cluster” to refer to an “escalating public health crisis” doesn’t curdle your blood, you need new blood!
Why would the rate of AML be increasing? I reckon the EHAP team would blame it on the residents’ increased rate of smoking. But a plausible and horrifying alternative hypothesis is that the relatively dry conditions over the last few years means there’s more dust in the air. In the Tucson Weekly article cited earlier, it says:
“[University of Arizona researchers] Witten and Sheppard suspect that drought could have something to do with what's happening in Fallon and Sierra Vista--the towns may be dustier than they were, meaning that people would be breathing in more of whatever's in the soil.”
There’s evidence of an escalating public health crisis in the River Road, Trainsong and Bethel area. KEZI News parroted EHAP’s cruel and unjustified allegation that the high rate of nicotine consumption in the area is more likely to be the cause than the triple dosage of industrial pollution (Weyerhaeuser, Baxter, Union Pacific). The RG didn’t bother attending.
Representative Chris Edwards noted that this is a legal and political issue as well as a scientific one. Of course, it is primarily a public health issue. The fourfold increase in the rate of AML in Trainsong/Bethel/River Road from ’96-‘00/’00-’04 is evidence of an increase in exposure to an environmental contaminant. With all due respect to the EHAP team, I think it might be worth considering courses of action other than the one they recommended (give us more money to analyze more data).
The report was “prepared by Oregon Department of Human Services Under Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.” It was written by Dr. Douglas, Kathryn Toepel, MS, Sujata Joshi, MSPH and Julie Early-Alberts, MS at ODHS/EHAP and “certified” by Alan Crawford and Alan Yarbrough, MS at USDHHS/ATSDR. It is a revision of the report that was distributed at a May 17, 2007 meeting at the same location at which Dr. Douglas was accompanied by Lane County Public Health Officer Dr. Sarah Hendrickson as well as representatives from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and (I think) USDHHS/ATSDR.
I have mocked the Eugene Police Department and Eugene Police Commission for generating (e.g., CIT report prepared by EPC co-chair/Crest Elementary School Principal Alsup, 6 month Taser analysis prepared by EPD Planner Phelps) and purchasing (e.g., retired McMinnville, OR police chief Rod Brown’s $25K analysis of Lara/Magana tragedy; Magellan staffing report written by Eric Fritsch and Robert Taylor at the University of North Texas) pseudoscientific reports.
The July 14, 2008 EHAP cancer cluster investigation is not pseudoscience – it’s real science. I have studied cancer clusters in Fallon, Nevada and Sierra Vista, Arizona and this report is by far, the best cancer cluster study I’ve ever seen. [I criticized the CDC’s approach to cancer clusters in this February 12, 2004 article by Renee Downing in the Tucson Weekly.]
Unfortunately, “best cancer cluster study” is a dubious compliment, sort of like “most sober Belotti.”
The summary of the July 14, 2008 report begins (p. 4):
“The Environmental Health Assessment Program (EHAP), part of the Oregon Department of Human Services Public Health Division, developed this health consultation in response to a request from residents of the Bethel, River Road and Trainsong neighborhoods in northwest Eugene, Oregon. These densely populated neighborhoods border the J.H. Baxter wood treatment plant and are near several other industrial sites. Residents were concerned about the possible health impacts from contaminants released by these businesses.”
There are two strange things about this introduction.
1. There is no mention of the Union Pacific Railroad, which everyone admits is a primary source of carcinogenic compounds in the air and groundwater in the area in question. Indeed on page 7, the authors note “Several other industrial sites also exist near residents’ homes in or near the Bethel, River Road, and Trainsong neighborhoods (Figure 1), including Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), many of which release chemicals in the area that are known or suspected carcinogens. Although there are many sources of contamination in these neighborhoods, we are unable to draw conclusions about the public health impacts from the individual or collective contaminant sources at this time.”
Lumping “Union Pacific Railroad” into “other industrial sites” is very misleading but fortunately, had no adverse effect on the design of the study.
2. Usually, in cases of suspected cancer clusters, it’s the county public health official who contacts the state epidemiologist, perhaps after being alerted by the city council or county commissioners. But it appears that neither the Eugene City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners nor the Lane County Public Health Officer cared enough to take action. The residents contacted EHAP themselves. That’s an amazing black eye for the ECC, LCBC and LCPHO.
“While collecting community concerns about the J.H. Baxter site in 2003, EHAP was petitioned by community members living in this area to investigate the incidence of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and brain cancer. Residents were concerned that there were excess rates of these two types of cancers, possibly caused by contaminants released from the wood treatment facility along with the other nearby industries.”
Although Dr. Douglas has a Ph.D. in epidemiology and years of experience working for the state of Oregon, she chose to defer to community members in deciding which types of cancer to study. Since the residents were concerned with AML and “brain” cancer, that’s what she studied. This is unbelievable – instead of taking an evidence-based approach to the question of what types of cancer would be expected if the creosote and pentachlorophenol used as preservatives at J. H. Baxter and/or the diesel fumes emitted from UPRR were adversely affecting the residents, she decided to rely on the pet theories of the citizens who alerted her office to the cluster!
On page 7-8, it says:
“Residents’ specific concerns related to a potential cancer cluster stemmed from a number of AML cases within a small area in the Bethel neighborhood. Residents also learned about what seemed to them an unusual number of brain cancer cases in the neighborhood. Because of the odors from J.H. Baxter and knowledge about chemicals released by the different industrial sites, residents came to believe that these cancer cases were related to environmental exposures. This document is intended to address some of those concerns.”
While one would hope that the document would address the question of whether the rates of environmentally sensitive cancers (e.g., AML and other lymphomas/leukemias) are elevated in the Trainsong, River Road and Bethel neighborhoods, the document was focused on addressing the specific residents’ specific concerns. This borders on pseudoscience, especially when you realize that the EHAP researchers didn’t just focus on AML and brain cancer (as requested by the residents who contacted EHAP!) but on their own initiative, the EHAP team members added lung cancer but not any other cancers known to be sensitive to industrial pollutants (e.g., acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL)).
As Dr. Douglas and Ms. Joshi noted in their interview with KEZI news, an elevated rate of lung cancer is not very informative about the role of industrial pollutant-carcinogens in a neighborhood with a high frequency of smokers. I hadn’t realized that like lung cancer, the risk of AML is much higher for smokers than for non-smokers. That is, of the three types of cancer studied, one isn’t very environmentally sensitive (brain cancer) and the other two are caused both by industrial contaminants and by smoking (lung cancer, acute myeloid leukemia). That is, the five year ($x million) study was destined from the get-go to be utterly uninformative about the question of whether the ongoing pollution from J.H. Baxter, Union Pacific Railroad and other industries in the area has caused AND CONTINUES TO CAUSE adverse health effects in the residents of the area.
The 18 page report is followed by 8 pages of comments by the one citizen who provided public comment when it was allowed in April, 2007 and responses from EHAP. On page 22 (Comment I), it says:
“EHAP needs to investigate the potential common environmental exposures that might contribute to this cancer cluster –and not just benzene, but formaldehyde, PAHs, and other potential leukemogens…Weyerhaeuser MDF (just west of the western boundary of census tract 43) emitted 135, 859 pounds of formaldehyde in 2002 –making it one of the largest emitters to air of the chemical of all TRI-reporting facilities in the US. This facility and its pollution would seem a potential “culprit” contributing to risk of AML in tract 43 (Bethel) residents.”
So there are three smoking guns (Baxter, Union Pacific and Weyerhaeuser) with very deep pockets and three types of cancer that are elevated (brain, lung, AML). But the summary of the EHAP report ends like this (p. 5):
“In conclusion, EHAP identified statistical elevations of AML and brain and lung cancers in the Bethel, River Road and Trainsong neighborhoods. It is likely, given the known risk factors for these cancers, that many of these cases arose from the effects of tobacco use. Because of limited information on individual case histories and environmental exposures, EHAP is unable to determine the role that environmental contaminants from a single or multiple sources might have played in these apparent clusters.
EHAP considers tobacco smoke to be an important environmental contaminant and a major risk factor for cancer, and recommends the implementation or expansion of tobacco prevention and cessation programs in these neighborhoods. EHAP also recommends the review of available air monitoring data to determine if they can be used to evaluate health risks related to environmental exposure in these neighborhoods.”
Unbelievably, the EHAP team confirms the existence of a cancer cluster in Bethel, Trainsong and River Road but instead of pointing a finger at Baxter, Union Pacific and Weyerhaeuser, it blames the victims for choosing to smoke products manufactured and marketed by Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds.
On page 7, the EHAP researchers state “The chemical compounds used as preservatives at J.H.Baxter include pentachlorophenol, creosote and ammonia copper zinc arsenate (ACZA). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), a primary constitutent of creosote, have been associated with lung and nasal cancer.”
On pages 22-23, the public commenter states “The years 2002-2004 (when AML rates were high) also correlate with a period when there were a high number of odor complaints about J.H. Baxter. Baxter’s odors are assumed to correlate with naphthalene content of the emissions. Naphthalene is also used as a surrogate for measuring total PAHs, suspected to cause cancer, including leukemia.”
A comparison of the comments on page 7 to those on pages 22-23 suggests that the EHAP team omitted the fact that the chemicals used at Baxter are known to cause leukemia as well as lung cancer.
Bottom line: The pollution from Baxter contains a class of chemicals known to cause both lung cancer and AML. There are elevated rates of lung cancer and AML in the area. But the pollution from cigarettes also contains chemicals known to increase the risk both lung cancer and AML. Hence the conundrum.
EHAP’s response to the conundrum is “let’s gather more data.” But if you look at the first chart in Appendix B on page 32 that describes the frequency of AML from 1996-2004, you might question this response. The frequency of AML seems to be increasing. From 1996-2000, there were 2 cases of AML. From 2000-2004 there were 8 cases. The rate of AML from 2000-2004 is four times the rate of AML from 1996-2000. [I used the year 2000 twice so that both ranges would have five years.]
The EHAP researchers acknowledge this terrifying possibility on page 5. They write:
“When the analysis was restricted to the period 2002-2004, the number of observed cases in census tract 43 was significantly above the number expected. Because this might represent the early development of a cluster, cases of AML in census tract 43 will be monitored using 2005 and 2006 data.”
If the use of the term “development of a cluster” to refer to an “escalating public health crisis” doesn’t curdle your blood, you need new blood!
Why would the rate of AML be increasing? I reckon the EHAP team would blame it on the residents’ increased rate of smoking. But a plausible and horrifying alternative hypothesis is that the relatively dry conditions over the last few years means there’s more dust in the air. In the Tucson Weekly article cited earlier, it says:
“[University of Arizona researchers] Witten and Sheppard suspect that drought could have something to do with what's happening in Fallon and Sierra Vista--the towns may be dustier than they were, meaning that people would be breathing in more of whatever's in the soil.”
There’s evidence of an escalating public health crisis in the River Road, Trainsong and Bethel area. KEZI News parroted EHAP’s cruel and unjustified allegation that the high rate of nicotine consumption in the area is more likely to be the cause than the triple dosage of industrial pollution (Weyerhaeuser, Baxter, Union Pacific). The RG didn’t bother attending.
Representative Chris Edwards noted that this is a legal and political issue as well as a scientific one. Of course, it is primarily a public health issue. The fourfold increase in the rate of AML in Trainsong/Bethel/River Road from ’96-‘00/’00-’04 is evidence of an increase in exposure to an environmental contaminant. With all due respect to the EHAP team, I think it might be worth considering courses of action other than the one they recommended (give us more money to analyze more data).
lisa "can-do" gardner
This is a press release courtesy of the City of Eugene
The City of Eugene has finalized the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the new University of Oregon Basketball Arena following the closing of the appeal period on the land use decision. The $200 million dollar facility has cleared the final land use hurdle, and the University can proceed to submit building permits for the construction of the arena.
Planning Director Lisa Gardner said, “The completion of the land use application process for the U of O Arena is a significant milestone for our community, and is an accomplishment that many should be proud of. The community came together with the University with their sleeves rolled up, and all parties focused on positive outcomes. The result of that hard work was the Arena agreement that was the foundation for the Hearings Official's decision. It is also significant that the University of Oregon received approval for a $200 million Arena permit in less than five months. I believe this accomplishment highlights a 'can-do' attitude reflective of our community, and the benefits will be seen immediately in the positive economic impact of the construction project. "
The City of Eugene Hearings Official decision is available online at www.eugene-or.gov/arena.
The City of Eugene has finalized the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the new University of Oregon Basketball Arena following the closing of the appeal period on the land use decision. The $200 million dollar facility has cleared the final land use hurdle, and the University can proceed to submit building permits for the construction of the arena.
Planning Director Lisa Gardner said, “The completion of the land use application process for the U of O Arena is a significant milestone for our community, and is an accomplishment that many should be proud of. The community came together with the University with their sleeves rolled up, and all parties focused on positive outcomes. The result of that hard work was the Arena agreement that was the foundation for the Hearings Official's decision. It is also significant that the University of Oregon received approval for a $200 million Arena permit in less than five months. I believe this accomplishment highlights a 'can-do' attitude reflective of our community, and the benefits will be seen immediately in the positive economic impact of the construction project. "
The City of Eugene Hearings Official decision is available online at www.eugene-or.gov/arena.
dawn&doug kiss and make up
In a partial change of heart, Lane County prosecutors on Wednesday gave Eugene police the green light to resume investigating allegations that an officer improperly used a Taser stun gun to arrest a University of Oregon student during a downtown rally in May.
Prosecutors’ surprise blessing comes with one condition: that police internal affairs investigators do not interview officers involved in the controversial arrest until after those officers testify at the UO student’s criminal trial sometime next year.
But police should feel free to go ahead and question other witnesses to student Ian Van Ornum’s arrest, Lane County Deputy District Attorney Bob Lane told interim Eugene police Chief Pete Kerns in an e-mail Wednesday.
“Due to the continued delay in the criminal process, the district attorney’s office has decided to withdraw our objection to the interview of civilian witnesses for the purposes of the (city’s) administrative review,” Lane wrote. “We do request that the interviews of the officers continue to be suspended until such time as they have concluded any sworn testimony at trial.”
Before Wednesday, Lane County prosecutors consistently rejected any suggestion that the city’s investigation into the conduct of officer Jud Warden and Sgt. Bill Solesbee at the May 30 rally in Kesey Square should proceed before Van Ornum’s trial. Two other people also have been charged with crimes allegedly committed at the rally.
District Attorney Doug Harcleroad said earlier this week that he feared the city’s investigation could interfere with the defendants’ right to a fair trial.
Harcleroad said his main concern was that if the city completed its review, any public discussion that might follow could jeopardize the criminal prosecution.
Lane did not return a telephone message left at his office Wednesday seeking information about how long it might take the criminal process to play out.
Kerns wrote in a Wednesday e-mail to Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy and city councilors that prosecutors’ decision to drop their objection to interviewing nonpolice witnesses to Van Ornum’s arrest will allow investigators to complete their probe soon after the criminal case is closed.
“By reopening this case we will be able to gather nearly all the information available prior to trial,” Kerns wrote.
Officials with Eugene’s police oversight program have been frustrated by the delayed city investigation. Van Ornum and several witnesses to his arrest filed complaints with the city’s police auditor alleging that Warden and Solesbee used excessive force when they took Van Ornum into custody.
Police said Van Ornum, who was 18 at the time, became combative with officers after they tried to arrest him for blocking traffic during the May 30 rally.
Warden used his department-issued Taser to subdue Van Ornum after the teen allegedly resisted Solesbee’s efforts to handcuff him.
Police suspended their investigation into the actions of Warden and Solesbee when Harcleroad decided in June that Van Ornum’s case should be prosecuted in Lane County Circuit Court.
Van Ornum pleaded not guilty in August to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
The city’s civilian review board voted in June to designate the investigation centering on Warden and Solesbee as Eugene’s first “community impact case.”
The designation gives the board the power to review the investigation upon its completion, and then recommend to the police chief whether he should punish the officers for using excessive force when they arrested Van Ornum.
Interim city Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds called Wednesday’s announcement “good news” but added that she wishes the nearly two dozen nonpolice witnesses to Van Ornum’s arrest had been interviewed sooner, when their memories of the incident were fresh.
Prosecutors’ surprise blessing comes with one condition: that police internal affairs investigators do not interview officers involved in the controversial arrest until after those officers testify at the UO student’s criminal trial sometime next year.
But police should feel free to go ahead and question other witnesses to student Ian Van Ornum’s arrest, Lane County Deputy District Attorney Bob Lane told interim Eugene police Chief Pete Kerns in an e-mail Wednesday.
“Due to the continued delay in the criminal process, the district attorney’s office has decided to withdraw our objection to the interview of civilian witnesses for the purposes of the (city’s) administrative review,” Lane wrote. “We do request that the interviews of the officers continue to be suspended until such time as they have concluded any sworn testimony at trial.”
Before Wednesday, Lane County prosecutors consistently rejected any suggestion that the city’s investigation into the conduct of officer Jud Warden and Sgt. Bill Solesbee at the May 30 rally in Kesey Square should proceed before Van Ornum’s trial. Two other people also have been charged with crimes allegedly committed at the rally.
District Attorney Doug Harcleroad said earlier this week that he feared the city’s investigation could interfere with the defendants’ right to a fair trial.
Harcleroad said his main concern was that if the city completed its review, any public discussion that might follow could jeopardize the criminal prosecution.
Lane did not return a telephone message left at his office Wednesday seeking information about how long it might take the criminal process to play out.
Kerns wrote in a Wednesday e-mail to Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy and city councilors that prosecutors’ decision to drop their objection to interviewing nonpolice witnesses to Van Ornum’s arrest will allow investigators to complete their probe soon after the criminal case is closed.
“By reopening this case we will be able to gather nearly all the information available prior to trial,” Kerns wrote.
Officials with Eugene’s police oversight program have been frustrated by the delayed city investigation. Van Ornum and several witnesses to his arrest filed complaints with the city’s police auditor alleging that Warden and Solesbee used excessive force when they took Van Ornum into custody.
Police said Van Ornum, who was 18 at the time, became combative with officers after they tried to arrest him for blocking traffic during the May 30 rally.
Warden used his department-issued Taser to subdue Van Ornum after the teen allegedly resisted Solesbee’s efforts to handcuff him.
Police suspended their investigation into the actions of Warden and Solesbee when Harcleroad decided in June that Van Ornum’s case should be prosecuted in Lane County Circuit Court.
Van Ornum pleaded not guilty in August to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
The city’s civilian review board voted in June to designate the investigation centering on Warden and Solesbee as Eugene’s first “community impact case.”
The designation gives the board the power to review the investigation upon its completion, and then recommend to the police chief whether he should punish the officers for using excessive force when they arrested Van Ornum.
Interim city Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds called Wednesday’s announcement “good news” but added that she wishes the nearly two dozen nonpolice witnesses to Van Ornum’s arrest had been interviewed sooner, when their memories of the incident were fresh.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
save the tree!
To: City of Eugene Associate Planner Steve Ochs
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your belated and content-free response to my question about the $4 (?) million subcontract from Hoffman Construction in Portland to [? Corporation in Eugene? Portland? Beaverton?] for the excavation of 10-15 feet [deep * X feet wide * Y feet long = >10XY cubic feet=Z tons] of Willamette River rock from the MR-110 sub-basin necessary to build an $18+ million parking garage under a $200+ million basketball arena on $30+ million worth of real estate at the corner of Franklin and Villard.
The $30 million worth of real estate consists of 19 mostly-fraudulently-acquired tax lots and two still-contested snippets of the City of Eugene’s physical transportation infrastructure. [The appeal by Jonathan Bowers and me to remand City of Eugene Ordinances 20420/20421 on August 13, 2008 vacating sections of Villard Alley and E. 13th St. as per OAR 661-010-0071(b)&(c) (a.k.a. LUBA 2008-156/157) will not be made until December 11, 2008 at the earliest and possibly not until December 18, 2008.]
Let me try again.
QUESTION A:
1. What is the name of the company that won the bid for the lucrative excavation subcontract from Hoffman Construction in Portland?
2. On what date did or will the company identified in Question 1 begin its assault on the MR-110 sub-basin of the Willamette River?
QUESTION B:
Item 2 on page 3 of the Arena Mitigation Agreement cosigned by Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz, University of Oregon Vice President for Finance, Administration and Graft Frances Dyke, Fairmount Neighbors Association chair/University of Oregon Assistant Professor of Architecture Mark Gillem and FNA co-chair Shellie Robertson on October 17, 2008 and endorsed by City of Eugene Attorney Glenn Klein (Harrang, Long, Gary & Rudnick), FNA lawyer Meg Kieran (Gartland, Nelson, McCleery Wade & Walloch) and UO General Counsel Melinda Grier on October 16, 2008 refers to “TDM [Transportation Demand Management] Plan Requirements” that “must be completed by University (i.e., State Board of Higher Education) before City will issue a post-construction occupancy permit for the Arena.” Item 2c (i) “includes the construction of a right-turn lane from eastbound Franklin Blvd. to southbound Agate St.” and “the extension of the left-turn lane on Franklin for Riverfront Parkway.”
On page 17 of the September 30, 2008 CU08-4 Staff Report written by City of Eugene Associate Planner Steve Ochs (i.e., you), it states “Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that the applicant is proposing to remove a historic street tree in the Franklin Boulevard media by extending the eastbound left turn lane at Agate Street as noted on page 9 of the applicant’s CUP written statement and shown in Appendix J of the TIA [Traffic Impact Analysis].”
On page 20 of her 42-page November 7, 2008 conditional approval of your 40-page September 30, 2008 request for a conditional use permit on behalf of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs devoted two paragraphs to hypothesizing about whether a city-wide vote would be required for the approval of the tree removal permit request as per Section 52 of the Eugene City Charter. Ms. Briggs concluded it would not be and for some reason, also considered this hypothesizing sufficient to deem that Section 9.8090(5)(d) was conditionally satisfied. Section 9.8090(5)(d) states “If the [conditional use permit] proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process at EC 6.305 of this code.”
My question is this: When do you expect the Oregon State Board of Higher of Education to apply to City of Eugene Urban Forester Mark Snyder for the permit whose approval is a precondition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit application (as per ECC 9.8090(5)(d)) conditionally approved by HO Briggs on November 7, 2008? That is, when do you expect OSBHE to apply for a permit to remove the historic street tree at Franklin and Agate whose removal is required:
a. for compliance with the TIA, TDM, MOU subcomponents of the CUP approved on November 7, 2008, not to mention Section 9.8090(5)(d) of the Eugene City Code
and
b. prior to the issuance of a “post-construction occupancy permit” of the quarter-billion dollar, Oregon taxpayer-financed arena for OSBHE
Thanks,
Deb
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your belated and content-free response to my question about the $4 (?) million subcontract from Hoffman Construction in Portland to [? Corporation in Eugene? Portland? Beaverton?] for the excavation of 10-15 feet [deep * X feet wide * Y feet long = >10XY cubic feet=Z tons] of Willamette River rock from the MR-110 sub-basin necessary to build an $18+ million parking garage under a $200+ million basketball arena on $30+ million worth of real estate at the corner of Franklin and Villard.
The $30 million worth of real estate consists of 19 mostly-fraudulently-acquired tax lots and two still-contested snippets of the City of Eugene’s physical transportation infrastructure. [The appeal by Jonathan Bowers and me to remand City of Eugene Ordinances 20420/20421 on August 13, 2008 vacating sections of Villard Alley and E. 13th St. as per OAR 661-010-0071(b)&(c) (a.k.a. LUBA 2008-156/157) will not be made until December 11, 2008 at the earliest and possibly not until December 18, 2008.]
Let me try again.
QUESTION A:
1. What is the name of the company that won the bid for the lucrative excavation subcontract from Hoffman Construction in Portland?
2. On what date did or will the company identified in Question 1 begin its assault on the MR-110 sub-basin of the Willamette River?
QUESTION B:
Item 2 on page 3 of the Arena Mitigation Agreement cosigned by Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz, University of Oregon Vice President for Finance, Administration and Graft Frances Dyke, Fairmount Neighbors Association chair/University of Oregon Assistant Professor of Architecture Mark Gillem and FNA co-chair Shellie Robertson on October 17, 2008 and endorsed by City of Eugene Attorney Glenn Klein (Harrang, Long, Gary & Rudnick), FNA lawyer Meg Kieran (Gartland, Nelson, McCleery Wade & Walloch) and UO General Counsel Melinda Grier on October 16, 2008 refers to “TDM [Transportation Demand Management] Plan Requirements” that “must be completed by University (i.e., State Board of Higher Education) before City will issue a post-construction occupancy permit for the Arena.” Item 2c (i) “includes the construction of a right-turn lane from eastbound Franklin Blvd. to southbound Agate St.” and “the extension of the left-turn lane on Franklin for Riverfront Parkway.”
On page 17 of the September 30, 2008 CU08-4 Staff Report written by City of Eugene Associate Planner Steve Ochs (i.e., you), it states “Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that the applicant is proposing to remove a historic street tree in the Franklin Boulevard media by extending the eastbound left turn lane at Agate Street as noted on page 9 of the applicant’s CUP written statement and shown in Appendix J of the TIA [Traffic Impact Analysis].”
On page 20 of her 42-page November 7, 2008 conditional approval of your 40-page September 30, 2008 request for a conditional use permit on behalf of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs devoted two paragraphs to hypothesizing about whether a city-wide vote would be required for the approval of the tree removal permit request as per Section 52 of the Eugene City Charter. Ms. Briggs concluded it would not be and for some reason, also considered this hypothesizing sufficient to deem that Section 9.8090(5)(d) was conditionally satisfied. Section 9.8090(5)(d) states “If the [conditional use permit] proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process at EC 6.305 of this code.”
My question is this: When do you expect the Oregon State Board of Higher of Education to apply to City of Eugene Urban Forester Mark Snyder for the permit whose approval is a precondition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit application (as per ECC 9.8090(5)(d)) conditionally approved by HO Briggs on November 7, 2008? That is, when do you expect OSBHE to apply for a permit to remove the historic street tree at Franklin and Agate whose removal is required:
a. for compliance with the TIA, TDM, MOU subcomponents of the CUP approved on November 7, 2008, not to mention Section 9.8090(5)(d) of the Eugene City Code
and
b. prior to the issuance of a “post-construction occupancy permit” of the quarter-billion dollar, Oregon taxpayer-financed arena for OSBHE
Thanks,
Deb
dumb dawn and dumber doug
Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad says anti-pesticide protester Ian Van Ornum deserves a fair trial, and that’s why Eugene police should continue to delay a noncriminal investigation into allegations that officers unjustly used a Taser stun gun to arrest the University of Oregon student in May.
But officials with Eugene’s police oversight program disagree with Harcleroad’s position and say they want interim Police Chief Pete Kerns to overrule the county’s chief prosecutor and allow what they view as a long-overdue city review of officers’ actions to proceed immediately.
“I don’t see the justification” for further delay, interim city Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds told members of the city’s civilian review board during a meeting Monday.
The case is important to the community, to Van Ornum and to witnesses to his arrest who allege that a pair of Eugene officers used excessive force when they arrested the teen on misdemeanor charges during a downtown rally on May 30, Reynolds said.
But in Harcleroad’s opinion, it’s even more important that Van Ornum’s criminal case is prosecuted fairly.
Without discussing specifics, Harcleroad said prompt completion of the city’s investigation — and public discussion regarding the outcome of that review — could improperly have an impact on Van Ornum’s trial.
“We don’t want to jeopardize anyone’s right to a fair trial,” Harcleroad said. “Nobody has given me any compelling reason why they can’t wait” for Van Ornum’s case to play out in court before the city’s investigation wraps up.
Kerns — who has the final say on the matter — said Tuesday that he backs Harcleroad on the issue. That means it will be several more months before police officer Jud Warden and Sgt. Bill Solesbee learn whether they will face discipline in connection with the noncriminal city investigation.
“We will comply with the prosecution’s interest here,” Kerns said. “It is our job to assist in prosecuting offenses. It is in the community’s interest to ensure the best prosecution case goes forward.”
Van Ornum, 19, is expected to face trial early next year on misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
Police said Van Ornum blocked traffic during the May 30 rally in Kesey Square and became combative when officers tried to handcuff him.
Harcleroad decided in June that his office would prosecute Van Ornum’s case in Lane County Circuit Court rather than allow the city to handle it in Municipal Court.
That prompted former Police Chief Robert Lehner to follow Harcleroad’s request to halt the investigation into the excessive force claims filed with the police auditor’s office against Warden and Solesbee.
Harcleroad said that for years, it has been standard practice for the police department to defer an internal review until after a criminal case is completed.
But the decision to suspend the so-called “Taser case” investigation riled members of the city’s civilian review board, which only days prior to that move voted to designate the officer-misconduct probe as Eugene’s first-ever “community impact case.”
The designation gives the board the power to review the investigation once it is complete, and then recommend to the police chief whether Warden and Solesbee should be punished for using excessive force.
City Manager Jon Ruiz addressed the review board’s frustrations last month, when he instructed Kerns to ask Harcleroad if the city’s investigation could be completed prior to Van Ornum’s trial.
Ruiz said he wanted Kerns to take up the issue with Harcleroad because of high community interest in the officer-misconduct case.
Kerns subsequently spoke with Harcleroad, who requested that the city’s review remain on hold.
“How they run their police department is up to them,” Harcleroad said. “But when it affects our ability to do our job, we let them know about it.”
The civilian review board further discussed the issue at its Monday meeting.
Board member Munir Katul, a retired physician, accused Harcleroad of “thwarting the oversight process” by asking police to delay the city’s investigation into officers’ actions for several more months.
“This is a roadblock,” Katul said Monday.
Reynolds noted that a city ordinance calls for the police auditor to monitor officer-misconduct investigations to ensure timeliness.
“Our system is supposed to operate in a timely manner,” Reynolds said. “Doug Harcleroad has made it clear that (delaying the internal investigation) is his strong preference. The D.A. has played a card that isn’t in the ordinance.”
Reynolds said she will meet with Kerns on Friday to discuss the issue.
“I haven’t given up on this,” she said. “I keep pressing.”
Ruiz said if Reynolds comes to him with a problem about the way the case is being handled, he will meet with Reynolds and Kerns to try to work out a resolution that satisfies both of them.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
jay ewe double dee warden
On March 9, 2008, at the corner of 7th and Olive, the Eugene Police Department lost its TV (Taser virginity).
At approximately 3:30 p.m., Eugene Police Officer Judd Warden used his Taser-brand personal electrocution device to subdue 39-year old Vito Devaliti. Mr. Devaliti had an altercation with a 16-year-old male and three friends at 10th and Olive. The hostilities escalated to the point where Mr. Devaliti allegedly threatened to shoot the teen and "displayed what looked like the barrel of a handgun from a sweatshirt wrapped in his hand."
According to the police, the teen turned and ran, and Devaliti chased him. The boy ran to safety, while his friends used their cell phones to call police. The 911 caller alleged that Mr. Devaliti had threatened to shoot his friend and was armed with a .38-caliber handgun. The friend of the alleged victim also provided the 911 dispatcher with information about the direction the alleged perpetrator was running. According to Eugene inbredgister guard reporter Andrea Damewood, Officer Warden chased Mr. Devaliti [from an undisclosed starting point] all the way to the Dutch Brothers coffee kiosk at Seventh and Olive.
The Eugene Police Department Taser policy, proposed by the Eugene Police Commission on ab.cd.06, adopted by the chief on ef.gh.07 and implemented by the Eugene Police Department on ij.kl.07 requires officers to warn subjects before administering a shock and allow time for the person to comply voluntarily. Only people engaged in “aggressive physical resistance” can be shocked.
According to Captain Pete Kerns, Mr. Devaliti ignored Officer Warden's demands to show his hands and get on the ground, advanced toward the officer and taunted him to use the Taser. Ms. Damewood did not even ascertain whether Officer Warden gave Mr. Devaliti the required verbal warning "u r bout 2 b tased, bro."
According to EPD PIO Melinda Kletzok, Warden then fired his Taser to stop Devaliti. Officers found a cigar tube on Devaliti that may have been used to simulate the presence of a handgun.
According to Captain Kerns, "because Devaliti was thought to be armed and acting aggressively, Warden would have been justified in using lethal force."
“Without the Taser, in this case, the officer would have had no option but to shoot the suspect,” he said. “It would have been a righteous thing to do. If (Devaliti) had a gun, he would have had the draw on our officer, and he would have gotten the first shot off.”
Kerns praised Warden for being “coolheaded” during the tense situation.
“The officer told me he wanted to give the guy one last chance before he would shoot him with his handgun,” Kerns said.
auditorgate update
ed russo, ewegene inbredgister guard:
In a reversal that angered a departing councilor, the Eugene City Council on Monday decided that slower is better when it comes to expanding the authority of the police auditor.
Councilors voted 5-2 to appoint a committee that will take until March before recommending ways to clarify and in some cases strengthen the police auditor’s role in the classification, investigation and monitoring of complaints against police officers.
Just last week, a narrowly divided council indicated it wanted to make a series of changes by Dec. 10 to the ordinance that governs how the auditor works. The changes were offered by Councilor Bonny Bettman, whose term expires on Jan. 6.
But within the past week, Councilors Andrea Ortiz and Alan Zelenka changed their minds about moving that rapidly and instead proposed a more deliberate approach.
With the support of Mayor Kitty Piercy, Ortiz and Zelenka collaborated on the proposal to appoint a committee and have it report to the council by March 11.
Ortiz said she heard from “people from all over the political spectrum” after the council’s vote last Monday, including some as early as 8 a.m. last Tuesday, who thought “we were moving too quickly.”
The police commission and members of the civilian review board, which works with the auditor to monitor complaint investigations against police officers, also contacted councilors and the mayor to urge delay so residents could have more opportunity to comment on the changes.
Among other things, the changes would put into city code that investigations could not be delayed while a criminal case against a person who filed a complaint is pending. Bettman also proposed that there be an opportunity for an appeal to the city manager of the police chief’s final decision on a complaint case.
Ortiz said she is familiar with the issues raised by Bettman’s proposal. But Ortiz said the ordinance changes were a lot to consider in a relatively short period of time.
“If I feel overwhelmed, I just feel we need to take a step back,” she said.
The committee will be composed of Piercy, two civilian review board members, two police commission members, two residents from the Citizens United for Better Policing watchdog group, two members of the Eugene police union, the police auditor and police chief. Four other members — two councilors and two residents — will be appointed by Piercy.
But Ortiz’s proposal upset Bettman, who called it “another orchestrated delay” to improving civilian oversight of the police department.
On Nov. 4, 65 percent of voters approved a city charter change to make it tougher to eliminate the fledgling police auditor and civilian review board. The vote shows that residents support oversight, Bettman said, and to delay the implementation of her proposed changes would overturn the will of the voters.
Bettman, who did not seek re-election to the south-central council seat, said she’s seen many questionable decisions l during her eight years on the council, “but this really takes the cake.”
Piercy, who supported the charter amendment, said her support for the delay is “certainly not to undermine the auditor.”
I am fully aware of that 65 percent (of voters),” she added. “I was part of it.”
Council President Chris Pryor said the longer time frame will allow more public comment on the oversight changes. Originally, councilors had planned to have a public hearing on Dec. 8. Councilors had planned to vote on the changes two days later.
“Three minutes at a podium at a public hearing is not quality input,” Pryor said.
“I’m not involved in orchestrating anything,” Pryor said, responding to Bettman’s arguments. Critics can think “whatever they want. I’m for good governance.”
Joining Ortiz, Zelenka and Pryor in favor of the committee proposal were councilors Jennifer Solomon and Mike Clark. Bettman and Councilor Betty Taylor voted against the proposal. Councilor George Poling was absent.
In a reversal that angered a departing councilor, the Eugene City Council on Monday decided that slower is better when it comes to expanding the authority of the police auditor.
Councilors voted 5-2 to appoint a committee that will take until March before recommending ways to clarify and in some cases strengthen the police auditor’s role in the classification, investigation and monitoring of complaints against police officers.
Just last week, a narrowly divided council indicated it wanted to make a series of changes by Dec. 10 to the ordinance that governs how the auditor works. The changes were offered by Councilor Bonny Bettman, whose term expires on Jan. 6.
But within the past week, Councilors Andrea Ortiz and Alan Zelenka changed their minds about moving that rapidly and instead proposed a more deliberate approach.
With the support of Mayor Kitty Piercy, Ortiz and Zelenka collaborated on the proposal to appoint a committee and have it report to the council by March 11.
Ortiz said she heard from “people from all over the political spectrum” after the council’s vote last Monday, including some as early as 8 a.m. last Tuesday, who thought “we were moving too quickly.”
The police commission and members of the civilian review board, which works with the auditor to monitor complaint investigations against police officers, also contacted councilors and the mayor to urge delay so residents could have more opportunity to comment on the changes.
Among other things, the changes would put into city code that investigations could not be delayed while a criminal case against a person who filed a complaint is pending. Bettman also proposed that there be an opportunity for an appeal to the city manager of the police chief’s final decision on a complaint case.
Ortiz said she is familiar with the issues raised by Bettman’s proposal. But Ortiz said the ordinance changes were a lot to consider in a relatively short period of time.
“If I feel overwhelmed, I just feel we need to take a step back,” she said.
The committee will be composed of Piercy, two civilian review board members, two police commission members, two residents from the Citizens United for Better Policing watchdog group, two members of the Eugene police union, the police auditor and police chief. Four other members — two councilors and two residents — will be appointed by Piercy.
But Ortiz’s proposal upset Bettman, who called it “another orchestrated delay” to improving civilian oversight of the police department.
On Nov. 4, 65 percent of voters approved a city charter change to make it tougher to eliminate the fledgling police auditor and civilian review board. The vote shows that residents support oversight, Bettman said, and to delay the implementation of her proposed changes would overturn the will of the voters.
Bettman, who did not seek re-election to the south-central council seat, said she’s seen many questionable decisions l during her eight years on the council, “but this really takes the cake.”
Piercy, who supported the charter amendment, said her support for the delay is “certainly not to undermine the auditor.”
I am fully aware of that 65 percent (of voters),” she added. “I was part of it.”
Council President Chris Pryor said the longer time frame will allow more public comment on the oversight changes. Originally, councilors had planned to have a public hearing on Dec. 8. Councilors had planned to vote on the changes two days later.
“Three minutes at a podium at a public hearing is not quality input,” Pryor said.
“I’m not involved in orchestrating anything,” Pryor said, responding to Bettman’s arguments. Critics can think “whatever they want. I’m for good governance.”
Joining Ortiz, Zelenka and Pryor in favor of the committee proposal were councilors Jennifer Solomon and Mike Clark. Bettman and Councilor Betty Taylor voted against the proposal. Councilor George Poling was absent.
thug harcleroad
October 30, 2008
To: Daniel Weiss, Deputy Chief, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, Washington, D.C.
From: Deborah Frisch, Ph.D., Eugene, OR (former director, Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA)
Re: Lane County (OR) District Attorney/Eugene Police Department
Dear Mr. Weiss,
Thank you very much for talking to me this morning. My allegation is that former Eugene Police Chief Robert M. Lehner and soon-to-be-former Lane County District Attorney F. Douglass Harcleroad have been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of citizens of Eugene, OR who come in contact with a member of the Eugene Police Department. [Mr. Lehner resigned on October 17, 2008 and is now Chief in Elk Grove, CA. Mr. Harcleroad is not running for re-election this year. He is retiring after only 25 years of public service and his Chief Deputy, Alex Gardner, is running unopposed.]
The background for these allegations comes from two Order and Opinion briefs by Federal Magistrate Thomas Coffin (3.6.06 and 5.3.06). In July, 2004 former Eugene Police Officer Roger Magana was sentenced to 94 years in prison by Lane County Circuit Court Judge Rasmussen for 41 felonies against a dozen women over a period of six years. Many of the victims filed civil suits in United States District Court alleging that Magana’s felonious behavior was facilitated by EPD’s lax internal affairs policy and former Chief Buchanan’s failure to take action, despite having knowledge that Magana was committing felonies while on duty.
By June, 2006 all of the suits were settled for a total of $5 million, the exact amount of the city’s insurance policy ($1.3 million went to the law firm that represents the City of Eugene and the other $3.7 million went to the dozen victims and their attorneys). Prior to settling, Jeffrey Matthews and Jens Schmidt of Harrang, Long, Gary & Rudnick submitted a motion for summary judgment.
On March 6, 2006, Federal Magistrate Thomas Coffin rejected the motion by Matthews and Schmidt.
Page 21 names at least a dozen supervisory personnel in the Eugene Police Department that heard allegations against Magana and chose not to take action during the 72 months he raped, sodomized and kidnapped prostitutes, heroin addicts and other vulnerable, easily discredited women.
On page 22, Magistrate Coffin wrote: “there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the Chief’s [Buchanan] response, or lack thereof was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of the women assaulted by Magana and Lara.”
On May 3, 2006 Magistrate Coffin made an even stronger allegation.
On page 5, he wrote: “As the court previously ruled, a jury could find from the evidence presently before the court that the Chief knew, or should have known, about a continuing practice of illegal conduct, i.e., officers abusing their positions of authority to solicit sexual relationships with women…. A jury could fairly and reasonably infer from the Magana evidence alone that the department, through the Chief [Buchanan], was deliberately indifferent not to just the rights of Magana's victims but to the rights of any woman who might be targeted by a Eugene police officer.”
I’ve included seven pieces of evidence in support of the allegation that Mr. Lehner and Mr. Harcleroad have been similarly indifferent to the constitutional rights of Eugene residents who encounter an EPD officer.
Example 1: EPD Officer Jimmie McBride
Eugene Police Department Officer Jimmie McBride has been the target of three separate Internal Affairs investigations in the last year.
A07-048 (Smith)
1. November 30, 2007 letter from Linn County Senior Deputy District Attorney DeAnn Novotny to Lane County D.A. Harcleroad declining to press charges against Officer McBride for breaking Mr. Smith’s pelvis in the process of arresting him without probable cause.
Smith vs. McBride/City of Eugene (08-06176-HO) is scheduled for a settlement hearing at the Wayne Morse Federal Building on November 3, 2008.
A07-051 (Gray)
2. October 17, 2007 IA investigation by Sergeant Scott McKee
3. November 30, 2007 letter from Linn County Senior Deputy District Attorney DeAnn Novotny to lane County D.A. Harcleroad declining to press charges against Officer McBride for punching Mr. Gray in the face while Mr. Gray was handcuffed in the back of Officer McBride’s car.
A08-109
4. The Eugene Register Guard posted a report by Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds that includes a table describing all internal affairs investigations in 2008 so far. I was at the Civilian Review Board meeting when this case was discussed “anonymously” but learned from another member of the public that Case 109 involved Officer McBride.
The whole report is here:
http://assets.registerguard.com/docs/Police-Auditor-Memo.pdf
5. I’ve included the first page, dated November 10, 2008, even though today is October 30, 2008.
6. I also included one more example where D.A. Harcleroad declined to press charges against an EPD officer who allegedly used excessive force (November 29, 2007 re: Clements).
Example 2: Lane County Circuit Court Indictment 20-08-18082A
7. This is the indictment of three activists involved in a confrontation with the Eugene Police Department and Homeland Security on May 30, 2008. A dozen witnesses alleged that EPD Sergeant Bill Solesbee and Officer Jud Warden used excessive force when they Tased Mr. Van Ornum several times while he was partially handcuffed. D.A. Harcleroad chose to have the grand jury simultaneously evaluate the criminality of the participants (Van Ornum, Farley & Parziale) and the officers (Solesbee, Warden). The grand jury opted to press charges against the protestors but not the officers. On page 3 of the indictment, Warden and Solesbee are listed as witnesses, even though they were also the target of the grand jury investigation.
Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.
To: Daniel Weiss, Deputy Chief, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, Washington, D.C.
From: Deborah Frisch, Ph.D., Eugene, OR (former director, Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA)
Re: Lane County (OR) District Attorney/Eugene Police Department
Dear Mr. Weiss,
Thank you very much for talking to me this morning. My allegation is that former Eugene Police Chief Robert M. Lehner and soon-to-be-former Lane County District Attorney F. Douglass Harcleroad have been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of citizens of Eugene, OR who come in contact with a member of the Eugene Police Department. [Mr. Lehner resigned on October 17, 2008 and is now Chief in Elk Grove, CA. Mr. Harcleroad is not running for re-election this year. He is retiring after only 25 years of public service and his Chief Deputy, Alex Gardner, is running unopposed.]
The background for these allegations comes from two Order and Opinion briefs by Federal Magistrate Thomas Coffin (3.6.06 and 5.3.06). In July, 2004 former Eugene Police Officer Roger Magana was sentenced to 94 years in prison by Lane County Circuit Court Judge Rasmussen for 41 felonies against a dozen women over a period of six years. Many of the victims filed civil suits in United States District Court alleging that Magana’s felonious behavior was facilitated by EPD’s lax internal affairs policy and former Chief Buchanan’s failure to take action, despite having knowledge that Magana was committing felonies while on duty.
By June, 2006 all of the suits were settled for a total of $5 million, the exact amount of the city’s insurance policy ($1.3 million went to the law firm that represents the City of Eugene and the other $3.7 million went to the dozen victims and their attorneys). Prior to settling, Jeffrey Matthews and Jens Schmidt of Harrang, Long, Gary & Rudnick submitted a motion for summary judgment.
On March 6, 2006, Federal Magistrate Thomas Coffin rejected the motion by Matthews and Schmidt.
Page 21 names at least a dozen supervisory personnel in the Eugene Police Department that heard allegations against Magana and chose not to take action during the 72 months he raped, sodomized and kidnapped prostitutes, heroin addicts and other vulnerable, easily discredited women.
On page 22, Magistrate Coffin wrote: “there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the Chief’s [Buchanan] response, or lack thereof was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of the women assaulted by Magana and Lara.”
On May 3, 2006 Magistrate Coffin made an even stronger allegation.
On page 5, he wrote: “As the court previously ruled, a jury could find from the evidence presently before the court that the Chief knew, or should have known, about a continuing practice of illegal conduct, i.e., officers abusing their positions of authority to solicit sexual relationships with women…. A jury could fairly and reasonably infer from the Magana evidence alone that the department, through the Chief [Buchanan], was deliberately indifferent not to just the rights of Magana's victims but to the rights of any woman who might be targeted by a Eugene police officer.”
I’ve included seven pieces of evidence in support of the allegation that Mr. Lehner and Mr. Harcleroad have been similarly indifferent to the constitutional rights of Eugene residents who encounter an EPD officer.
Example 1: EPD Officer Jimmie McBride
Eugene Police Department Officer Jimmie McBride has been the target of three separate Internal Affairs investigations in the last year.
A07-048 (Smith)
1. November 30, 2007 letter from Linn County Senior Deputy District Attorney DeAnn Novotny to Lane County D.A. Harcleroad declining to press charges against Officer McBride for breaking Mr. Smith’s pelvis in the process of arresting him without probable cause.
Smith vs. McBride/City of Eugene (08-06176-HO) is scheduled for a settlement hearing at the Wayne Morse Federal Building on November 3, 2008.
A07-051 (Gray)
2. October 17, 2007 IA investigation by Sergeant Scott McKee
3. November 30, 2007 letter from Linn County Senior Deputy District Attorney DeAnn Novotny to lane County D.A. Harcleroad declining to press charges against Officer McBride for punching Mr. Gray in the face while Mr. Gray was handcuffed in the back of Officer McBride’s car.
A08-109
4. The Eugene Register Guard posted a report by Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds that includes a table describing all internal affairs investigations in 2008 so far. I was at the Civilian Review Board meeting when this case was discussed “anonymously” but learned from another member of the public that Case 109 involved Officer McBride.
The whole report is here:
http://assets.registerguard.com/docs/Police-Auditor-Memo.pdf
5. I’ve included the first page, dated November 10, 2008, even though today is October 30, 2008.
6. I also included one more example where D.A. Harcleroad declined to press charges against an EPD officer who allegedly used excessive force (November 29, 2007 re: Clements).
Example 2: Lane County Circuit Court Indictment 20-08-18082A
7. This is the indictment of three activists involved in a confrontation with the Eugene Police Department and Homeland Security on May 30, 2008. A dozen witnesses alleged that EPD Sergeant Bill Solesbee and Officer Jud Warden used excessive force when they Tased Mr. Van Ornum several times while he was partially handcuffed. D.A. Harcleroad chose to have the grand jury simultaneously evaluate the criminality of the participants (Van Ornum, Farley & Parziale) and the officers (Solesbee, Warden). The grand jury opted to press charges against the protestors but not the officers. On page 3 of the indictment, Warden and Solesbee are listed as witnesses, even though they were also the target of the grand jury investigation.
Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.
lube-ah!
Land Use Board of Appeals
Tod A. Bassham, Board Member
TERM: 03/01/2007 - 02/28/2011
B.A., University of Tulsa (1983); M.A., University of Tulsa (1985); M.A., Ohio State University(1991); J.D., Lewis and Clark, Northwestern School of Law (1994); member of the Oregon State Bar since 1994; Mr. Bassham was previously staff attorney for LUBA.
Monday, November 17, 2008
or94435
To: Steve Shipsey, Oregon Department of Justice, Intervenor-Respondent, LUBA 156/157
Steve,
I'm not sure if it was homophobia or something else that caused you call me Mr. Frisch but it was great comic relief from listening to Emily argue against wading into the "morass" of wrestling with the question of the cost-effectiveness of the investment of a quarter of billion dollars of Oregonians' tax dollars for new digs for a-holes to watch n-words like Ernie Kent and l-words like Bev Smith bounce dead cows on dead oak and try to throw them through dead cotton.
Go Ducks!
Deb
Steve,
I'm not sure if it was homophobia or something else that caused you call me Mr. Frisch but it was great comic relief from listening to Emily argue against wading into the "morass" of wrestling with the question of the cost-effectiveness of the investment of a quarter of billion dollars of Oregonians' tax dollars for new digs for a-holes to watch n-words like Ernie Kent and l-words like Bev Smith bounce dead cows on dead oak and try to throw them through dead cotton.
Go Ducks!
Deb
ordoj=$@&$#
In Oregon, DOJ stands for Dumbphuques, zerOs and Jackarses. What’s it stand for in YOUR state?
Virginia Gustafson F-
Dale Hormann D
Ryan Hagemann F-
Albert Depenbrock (AAARRRGGGHHH!!!)
Peter "OR SB111" Shepherd (REDACT)
Steve Shipsey B-
Erin Donald C-
Virginia Gustafson F-
Dale Hormann D
Ryan Hagemann F-
Albert Depenbrock (AAARRRGGGHHH!!!)
Peter "OR SB111" Shepherd (REDACT)
Steve Shipsey B-
Erin Donald C-
Friday, November 14, 2008
luba statement
On page 16, the respondents correctly state, “In her first assignment of error, Respondents understand Intervenor-Petitioner to make two arguments allegedly supporting her conclusion that the City’s findings are insufficient to support the City’s vacation decisions.”
On page 5 (footnote 2) they write “the Board has clarified that it will remand a land use decision for further proceedings when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record” and cite OAR 661-010-0071(2)(b).
As I stated in my brief, my arguments are based on Section 2a, not Section 2b of OAR 661-010-0071/0073. 2(a) reads “The findings are insufficient to support the decision” while 2(b) reads “The decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.” The crux of the arguments cited on page 16 of my opponents’ brief is that we lack the information to evaluate whether the alley vacation decisions are in the public interest as required by ECC 9.8725. That is, the data in the record are INSUFFICIENT to support the decisions, which is why I chose section 2(a) and not 2(b), contrary to the allegation of Respondent Jerome and Intervenor-Respondents Shipsey & Donald on page 5/footnote 2.
Argument 1 re: OAR 661-010-0071(2)(a): Due to the City of Eugene’s failure to address ECC 9.8710(5), the data in the record are insufficient for evaluating whether the City complied with ECC 9.8725.
There are two sections of the Eugene City Code that are applicable in this hearing.
ECC 9.8725 states that the city council shall approve right-of-way vacation requests “only if the council finds that approval of the vacation is in the public interest.”
ECC 9.8710(5) states “A vacation of improved or unimproved public right-of-way shall require the payment by the applicant of a deposit equal to the assessment of special benefit that results from the vacation and disposition of property to the benefited property owners.
(a)The assessed value of special benefit and the amount of money to be deposited shall be determined by the city manager. The assessed value of special benefit shall include:
(1) The value of the real property; and
(2) The costs incurred by the city in the construction of public improvements.”
On page 19, the respondents argue “the only question properly before the Board is the validity of the City’s determination that the two vacation requests are in the public interest, not the validity of the Basis of Value Report on which the City Manager based his assessment. To the extent the Board determines the validity of the Basis of Value Report is related to the public interest question, the Basis of Value Report is, in fact, valid. “
I thank the respondents for clarifying my thinking on this matter – the point isn’t so much the presence of the Basis of Value report from Mr. Williams, it’s the absence of a letter from City Manager Ruiz. The way the “Basis of Value Report” is related to the “public interest question” is as follows.
1. A minimum condition necessary to find that the right-of-way vacations are in the public interest as per ECC 9.8725 is that the assessment of special benefit was determined by the city manager according to ECC 9.8710(5)(a)(1) and (2).
2. There is no letter in the 750+ page record from Eugene City Manager Ruiz referring to Section 9.8710(5)(a) of the Eugene City Code.
3. The applicant implicitly and arbitrarily assumes that the April 14, 2008 “Basis of Value” report by residential real estate appraiser Lloyd Williams that explicitly says “This is not an appraisal” satisfies ECC 9.8710(5)(a)(1) and (2).
4. On page 3, the respondent and intervenor-respondents falsely allege that “As required by EC 9.8710(5)(a), the City Manager determined the value of the special benefit the University would received (sic) if the City approved the vacation.” There is NO letter from the City Manager about this issue. Thus, Section 9.8710(5)(a) has not even been addressed by the applicant, let alone satisfied.
5. Since ECC 9.8710(5)(a) has not been addressed, it is not possible to determine whether the alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725.
CONCLUSION: Oregon Administrative Rules 661-010-0071(2)(a) states “The Board shall remand a limited land use decision for further proceedings when the findings are insufficient to support the decision, except as provided in ORS 197.835(11)(b).”
The 750+ page record not contain a letter from Eugene City Manager Ruiz addressing the criteria described in ECC 9.8710(5)(a) and justifying the use of the basis of value for the assessment of special benefit. Thus, we cannot be sure the proposed alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725. Since the findings in the record are insufficient to support the right-of-way vacation decision, Oregon Administrative Rules 661-010-0071(2)(a) mandates that the City of Eugene’s decision should be remanded.
Argument 2: Respondent Jerome and Intervenor-Respondents Shipsey and Donald alternate between two radically different interpretations of the phrase “public interest” in their 23 page brief. This inconsistency mirrors an inconsistency used by the applicant (University of Oregon/State Board of Higher Education) and the respondent (City of Eugene) at the July 21, 2008 public hearing and at the August 13, 2008 City Council meeting at which the disputed decision was made. The chronic inconsistency in the usage of the crucial term “in the public interest” makes it impossible to interpret, let alone evaluate the allegation made by the applicant (Oregon State Board of Higher Education), respondent (City of Eugene) and the intervenor respondent (Oregon State Board of Higher Education) that the alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725.
The Table of Contents (page 1) contains three components of their justification:
1. Right-of-Ways Provide minimal Public Benefit
2. The Vacations Will Improve Traffic Circulation and Transportation, and Public Services and Facilities Will Not be Impacted
3. The Vacations Allow for Enhanced Redevelopment of the Site and Substantial Economic Benefits to the Public
Sections 1 and 2 are subdivided into the “Villard Alley” and “East 13th Street” Right-of-ways. Section 3 is not. At the public hearing, Ms. Jerome suggested that the two ordinances be considered simultaneously. The reason she suggested this is because the reason so many people cared enough to testify at the July 21, 2008 hearing is because the alley vacations in question are geographically minor but strategically essential real estate acquisitions necessary for the Oregon State Board of Higher Education to actualize its plans to build a quarter of a billion dollar new basketball arena on the 19 separate tax lots.
As the respondent and intervenor-respondents note on page 11, “OSBHE can only consolidate the lots and develop the site as one parcel if the City vacates the Villard Alley right-of-way and the East 13th Avenue right of way. Only if the site is consolidated can it accommodate large-scale development, such as the proposed arena.”
And yet, Respondent and Intervenor-Respondents persist in pretending that the question of whether these arena-enabling alley-vacations are in the public interest hinges on the effect on pedestrian access to the site and improved traffic circulation.
The table of contents provides a vivid demonstration of pithy, precise and utterly inconsistent way that the applicant (Oregon State Higher Board of Education), respondent (City of Eugene) and intervenor-respondent (Oregon State Board of Higher Education) define the term “public interest.”
CONCLUSION: The inconsistency in the usage of the term “in the public interest” between IVC Sections 1&2 versus 3 prevents us from us determining whether proposed alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725. Since the findings in the record are insufficient to support the right-of-way vacation decisions, Oregon Administrative Rules 661-010-0071(2)(a) mandates that the City of Eugene’s decision should be remanded.
On page 5 (footnote 2) they write “the Board has clarified that it will remand a land use decision for further proceedings when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record” and cite OAR 661-010-0071(2)(b).
As I stated in my brief, my arguments are based on Section 2a, not Section 2b of OAR 661-010-0071/0073. 2(a) reads “The findings are insufficient to support the decision” while 2(b) reads “The decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.” The crux of the arguments cited on page 16 of my opponents’ brief is that we lack the information to evaluate whether the alley vacation decisions are in the public interest as required by ECC 9.8725. That is, the data in the record are INSUFFICIENT to support the decisions, which is why I chose section 2(a) and not 2(b), contrary to the allegation of Respondent Jerome and Intervenor-Respondents Shipsey & Donald on page 5/footnote 2.
Argument 1 re: OAR 661-010-0071(2)(a): Due to the City of Eugene’s failure to address ECC 9.8710(5), the data in the record are insufficient for evaluating whether the City complied with ECC 9.8725.
There are two sections of the Eugene City Code that are applicable in this hearing.
ECC 9.8725 states that the city council shall approve right-of-way vacation requests “only if the council finds that approval of the vacation is in the public interest.”
ECC 9.8710(5) states “A vacation of improved or unimproved public right-of-way shall require the payment by the applicant of a deposit equal to the assessment of special benefit that results from the vacation and disposition of property to the benefited property owners.
(a)The assessed value of special benefit and the amount of money to be deposited shall be determined by the city manager. The assessed value of special benefit shall include:
(1) The value of the real property; and
(2) The costs incurred by the city in the construction of public improvements.”
On page 19, the respondents argue “the only question properly before the Board is the validity of the City’s determination that the two vacation requests are in the public interest, not the validity of the Basis of Value Report on which the City Manager based his assessment. To the extent the Board determines the validity of the Basis of Value Report is related to the public interest question, the Basis of Value Report is, in fact, valid. “
I thank the respondents for clarifying my thinking on this matter – the point isn’t so much the presence of the Basis of Value report from Mr. Williams, it’s the absence of a letter from City Manager Ruiz. The way the “Basis of Value Report” is related to the “public interest question” is as follows.
1. A minimum condition necessary to find that the right-of-way vacations are in the public interest as per ECC 9.8725 is that the assessment of special benefit was determined by the city manager according to ECC 9.8710(5)(a)(1) and (2).
2. There is no letter in the 750+ page record from Eugene City Manager Ruiz referring to Section 9.8710(5)(a) of the Eugene City Code.
3. The applicant implicitly and arbitrarily assumes that the April 14, 2008 “Basis of Value” report by residential real estate appraiser Lloyd Williams that explicitly says “This is not an appraisal” satisfies ECC 9.8710(5)(a)(1) and (2).
4. On page 3, the respondent and intervenor-respondents falsely allege that “As required by EC 9.8710(5)(a), the City Manager determined the value of the special benefit the University would received (sic) if the City approved the vacation.” There is NO letter from the City Manager about this issue. Thus, Section 9.8710(5)(a) has not even been addressed by the applicant, let alone satisfied.
5. Since ECC 9.8710(5)(a) has not been addressed, it is not possible to determine whether the alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725.
CONCLUSION: Oregon Administrative Rules 661-010-0071(2)(a) states “The Board shall remand a limited land use decision for further proceedings when the findings are insufficient to support the decision, except as provided in ORS 197.835(11)(b).”
The 750+ page record not contain a letter from Eugene City Manager Ruiz addressing the criteria described in ECC 9.8710(5)(a) and justifying the use of the basis of value for the assessment of special benefit. Thus, we cannot be sure the proposed alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725. Since the findings in the record are insufficient to support the right-of-way vacation decision, Oregon Administrative Rules 661-010-0071(2)(a) mandates that the City of Eugene’s decision should be remanded.
Argument 2: Respondent Jerome and Intervenor-Respondents Shipsey and Donald alternate between two radically different interpretations of the phrase “public interest” in their 23 page brief. This inconsistency mirrors an inconsistency used by the applicant (University of Oregon/State Board of Higher Education) and the respondent (City of Eugene) at the July 21, 2008 public hearing and at the August 13, 2008 City Council meeting at which the disputed decision was made. The chronic inconsistency in the usage of the crucial term “in the public interest” makes it impossible to interpret, let alone evaluate the allegation made by the applicant (Oregon State Board of Higher Education), respondent (City of Eugene) and the intervenor respondent (Oregon State Board of Higher Education) that the alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725.
The Table of Contents (page 1) contains three components of their justification:
1. Right-of-Ways Provide minimal Public Benefit
2. The Vacations Will Improve Traffic Circulation and Transportation, and Public Services and Facilities Will Not be Impacted
3. The Vacations Allow for Enhanced Redevelopment of the Site and Substantial Economic Benefits to the Public
Sections 1 and 2 are subdivided into the “Villard Alley” and “East 13th Street” Right-of-ways. Section 3 is not. At the public hearing, Ms. Jerome suggested that the two ordinances be considered simultaneously. The reason she suggested this is because the reason so many people cared enough to testify at the July 21, 2008 hearing is because the alley vacations in question are geographically minor but strategically essential real estate acquisitions necessary for the Oregon State Board of Higher Education to actualize its plans to build a quarter of a billion dollar new basketball arena on the 19 separate tax lots.
As the respondent and intervenor-respondents note on page 11, “OSBHE can only consolidate the lots and develop the site as one parcel if the City vacates the Villard Alley right-of-way and the East 13th Avenue right of way. Only if the site is consolidated can it accommodate large-scale development, such as the proposed arena.”
And yet, Respondent and Intervenor-Respondents persist in pretending that the question of whether these arena-enabling alley-vacations are in the public interest hinges on the effect on pedestrian access to the site and improved traffic circulation.
The table of contents provides a vivid demonstration of pithy, precise and utterly inconsistent way that the applicant (Oregon State Higher Board of Education), respondent (City of Eugene) and intervenor-respondent (Oregon State Board of Higher Education) define the term “public interest.”
CONCLUSION: The inconsistency in the usage of the term “in the public interest” between IVC Sections 1&2 versus 3 prevents us from us determining whether proposed alley vacations are in the public interest, as required by ECC 9.8725. Since the findings in the record are insufficient to support the right-of-way vacation decisions, Oregon Administrative Rules 661-010-0071(2)(a) mandates that the City of Eugene’s decision should be remanded.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
mapes the best family win!
Thank you to Portland whOregonian writer Jeff Mapes for his February 14, 1990 article "Goldschmidt rumors frustrated his aides" written in collaboration with Steve Duin, Jim Long and Alan Ota about how unsmart and unethical thankfully-soon-to-be-former-University-of-whOregon-president David B. Frohnmayer was, even twenty years ago.
See also:
See also:
brassfield, mcdonald and magana
i tried for a year and a half to get paul brassfield off the streets on child molestation charges. no one wanted to hear anything because he is a snitch for the epd,springfieldpd,the fbi and the dea! he was recently arrested and possibly released already-this man is a [convicted]murderer,rapist,kidnapper and child molester-he usually operates auto mechanic garages.
Whoever posted this comment...if you are for real, you should contact me asap if not sooner - this is a VERY big lead.
Whoever posted this comment...if you are for real, you should contact me asap if not sooner - this is a VERY big lead.
hot off the press court order
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JONATHAN BOWERS,
/Petitioner, /
and
DEBORAH FRISCH,
/Intervenor-Petitioner, /
vs.
CITY OF EUGENE,
/Respondent, /
and
OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
/Intervenor-Respondent. /
LUBA Nos. 2008-156 and 2008-157
ORDER
OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) requires that petitions for review include numbers for each line of text. OAR 661-010-0035(2) generally requires that respondent’s briefs conform to the specifications for the petition for review specifications that are set out at OAR 661-010-0030(2). The combined response brief that was filed on November 6, 2008 by the city and intervenor-respondent does not include numbers for each line of text. Oral argument is currently scheduled for November 13, 2008.
In a letter dated November 10, 2008, petitioner asks that LUBA order the city and intervenor-respondent to file an amended respondent’s brief that complies with OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) and reschedule oral argument if necessary. Petitioner’s November 10, 2008 letter indicates that it was faxed to LUBA on November 10, 2008 and mailed via first class mail that date, but petitioner’s letter does not indicate that copies of the letter were sent to intervenor-petitioner, respondent or intervenor-respondent.
The reason for OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) is to make it easier for the parties and LUBA to refer to particular text in the parties’ briefs. However, it seems unlikely that the city’s and intervenor-responsent’s failure to comply with OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) in this case will significantly interfere with the parties’ oral argument or the Board’s resolution of the issues presented in this appeal. We therefore decline to cancel tomorrow’s oral argument or order that an amended respondents’ brief be filed to correct the identified violation of OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g).
Dated this 12^th day of November, 2008.
______________________________
Michael A. Holstun
Board Member
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JONATHAN BOWERS,
/Petitioner, /
and
DEBORAH FRISCH,
/Intervenor-Petitioner, /
vs.
CITY OF EUGENE,
/Respondent, /
and
OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
/Intervenor-Respondent. /
LUBA Nos. 2008-156 and 2008-157
ORDER
OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) requires that petitions for review include numbers for each line of text. OAR 661-010-0035(2) generally requires that respondent’s briefs conform to the specifications for the petition for review specifications that are set out at OAR 661-010-0030(2). The combined response brief that was filed on November 6, 2008 by the city and intervenor-respondent does not include numbers for each line of text. Oral argument is currently scheduled for November 13, 2008.
In a letter dated November 10, 2008, petitioner asks that LUBA order the city and intervenor-respondent to file an amended respondent’s brief that complies with OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) and reschedule oral argument if necessary. Petitioner’s November 10, 2008 letter indicates that it was faxed to LUBA on November 10, 2008 and mailed via first class mail that date, but petitioner’s letter does not indicate that copies of the letter were sent to intervenor-petitioner, respondent or intervenor-respondent.
The reason for OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) is to make it easier for the parties and LUBA to refer to particular text in the parties’ briefs. However, it seems unlikely that the city’s and intervenor-responsent’s failure to comply with OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g) in this case will significantly interfere with the parties’ oral argument or the Board’s resolution of the issues presented in this appeal. We therefore decline to cancel tomorrow’s oral argument or order that an amended respondents’ brief be filed to correct the identified violation of OAR 661-010-0030(2)(g).
Dated this 12^th day of November, 2008.
______________________________
Michael A. Holstun
Board Member
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
two year anniversary
In a previous message, I mocked Eugene Police Commission LEADERSHIP (Tamara Miller, chair and Crest Elementary School Principal Joe Alsup, co-chair) and EPC Coordinator Randi Zimmer for scheduling the November 13, 2008 Eugene Police Commission meeting on the eve of the anniversary of Ryan Salisbury’s November 14, 2006 death at the top of a southwest Eugene foothill a tad northeast of Bailey Hill after being shot at five times and hit three times by rapidly moving .223 caliber bullets intentionally ejected from an AR-15 assault rifle held by EPD Officer Shawn Trotter.
The November 13, 2008 EPC meeting begins at 5:30 p.m., roughly nine hours before the two year anniversary of Denise Salisbury’s 2:47 a.m. call to 911 that initiated the tragic sequence of events. There is at least one important fact about that night that has been omitted.
In Rebecca Nolan’s November 15, 2006 article “1 dead in police shooting” it states: “Eugene police fatally shot a 19-year-old man Tuesday who had threatened his parents with a knife during a violent rampage at the family home in the southwest hills…His mother called police at 2:47 a.m. from the family home of Skyview Lane and said her son had threatened to stab her and her husband, police said."
Ms. Nolan’s report is consistent with two November 14, 2006 news releases from EPD Public Information Officer Melinda Kletzok. A 12:39 p.m. release says “Today, at 2;47 a.m., Eugene Police responded to a call from a woman at xxxx Skyview Lane who reported her young adult son had a serious mental illness, was acting out violently, and had threatened to stab her and her husband with a knife.”
By 4:02, this had been modified to read “Today, at 2:47 a.m., Eugene Police responded to a call from a woman at xxxx Skyview Lane who reported her young adult son had a serous mental illness, was armed with a knife acting out violently, and was threatening himself and his parents.”
That is, according to PIO Kletzok’s 12:39 press release, Denise Salisbury told the 911 dispatcher that Ryan was homicidal. According to her 4:02 press release, Mrs. Salisbury told the 911 dispatcher that Ryan was suicidal and homicidal.
The transcript from D.A. Harcleroad’s 3:00 p.m. press conference on November 17, 2006 states “Mrs. Salisbury told the police dispatcher that Ryan was carrying a large kitchen knife and threatening to harm himself if anybody tried to interfere with him….Ryan’s parents are positive that he was not a threat to anybody but himself.”
In the February 22, 2007 Use of Force Review by Lieutenant Scott Fellman, it says “The call for assistance originated when a female resident of the house, Denise Salisbury, called 911 and reported that her nineteen year old son, Ryan Salisbury, was armed with a knife and was threatening to kill himself.”
A report by EPD Detective Donica states that after Denise dialed 911, Jeffrey persuaded her to hang up and to try to handle the situation themselves. 911 dispatch called back and Mrs. Salisbury informed the call-taker-turned-call-maker that Ryan was suicidal. For reasons that have never been explored, the dispatcher mis-communicated critical information from Mrs. Salisbury to Trotter, Lowe, Sharlow & Hubbard.
I assume the reason Melinda provided false information in her 12:39 and 4:02 press releases on November 14, 2006 was to hide the fact that one component of the diagnosis of the policy and/or personnel failures that contributed to the tragedy was “the 911 dispatcher falsely communicated to the officers that Ryan was homicidal, not suicidal even though Mrs. and Mr. Salisbury went to extraordinary lengths to communicate to dispatch and maybe some of the officers their son’s lack of threateningness toward others despite his extreme threateningness toward self.
Former Chief Lehner, D. A. Harcleroad and soon-to-be D.A. Gardner colluded in hiding the role of 911 dispatch in the tragedy, opting instead to leave the community with the impression that Denise had told 911 Ryan was homicidal. Lehner, Harcleroad and Gardner chose to add to Denise’s suffering by allowing the false allegation about her made by Rebecca Nolan on November 15, 2006 based on Melinda Kletzok’s two false November 14, 2006 press release to remain uncorrected. Way to go, hombres!
Within 24 hours of Ryan’s death, thankfully-former Eugene Police Chief Robert M. Lehner informally absolved Officer Trotter of any wrongdoing. Mr. Lehner diagnosed two root causes of the tragedy – Eugene Police Department’s Taser-deficiency disorder and Lane County’s underfunded mental health care system. If only Officers Trotter, Lowe and Sharlow and Recruit Hubbard had a Taser-brand personal electrocution device in their arsenal in addition to an AR-15 rifle, 40 mm launcher and Sig Sauer .45 caliber handgun, it woulda been different!
According to Mrs. Salisbury, Ryan had recently changed psychiatrists from Randy Frank, a child specialist in Eugene to Franc Strgar, an adult specialist in Springfield. Doctor (sic) Strgar decided to double Ryan’s dosage of Wellbutrin, which he was taking in addition to Lexapro, Depakote, Klonipin, Zyprexa, Ambien and Lunestra [according to testimony by Denise Salisbury in the 06-21679/06-097637 files available from D.A. Harcleroad]. I’d say that Ryan suffered from a mental health care overdose from Frank&Franc, not a deficit as alleged by Mr. Lehner.
Within 72 hours of Ryan’s death, thankfully-soon-to-be-former Lane County District Attorney F. Douglass Harcleroad formally absolved Officer Trotter of any wrongdoing. Not surprisingly, but very belatedly, a February 22, 2007 Use of Force review by Lieutenant Scott Fellman confirmed LCDA Harcleroad’s November 16, 2006 verdict.
On the one year anniversary of Ryan’s death, we learned from Becky Nolan of the Eugene Register Guard that a closeted EPD officer had nominated Officer Trotter for a Medal of Valor award from the Oregon Peace Officers Association and that he had been awarded it for killing a suicidal teenager armed with a kitchen knife. We learned that “Many [mental health advocates] are frustrated that the police department has added another weapon to its arsenal – the controversial Taser – but done little to improve training for officers who are often the first to encounter people suffering from mental health problems.”
On the two year anniversary of Ryan’s death, the controversial Taser program has led to a contentious conflict on May 30, 2008 that will almost surely result in legal action against the city of Eugene. And Crest Elementary School Principal Alsup, EPD Lieutenant Bills, Lane County Mental Health Director Al Levine and Sue Archibald from NAMI are busy as beavers trying to get the Crisis Intervention Training up and running.
Of course, the most exciting news is that EPD plans to add a new policy to its Police Operations Manual. Proposed EPD POM Policy 418, drafted by Ellman Cushman with assistance from Police Planner Linda Phelps, specifies procedures for dealing with “suspected mentally ill persons” like Ryan Salisbury. Hopefully by the third anniversary of Mr. Salisbury’s death, EPD will initiate Crisis Intervention Training and maybe even have an evidence-based (i.e., a VERY distant) cousin of proposed Policy 418 that will provide guidance to EPD officers faced with the daunting task of dealing with suicidal and other cognitive and/or emotionally impaired citizens.
This daunting task is increasingly common for Lane County law enforcement agents, due to its chronic underfunding of proactive/pre-emptive public safety services to an even greater extent than its chronic underfunding of police/protective public safety services. Oregon ranks 50 in the nation in law enforcement personnel per capita. Lane County is the lowest of any county in Oregon on this measure. Do the math. It’s not pretty. If a comparable measure existed for “social service personnel per capita” Lane County would also be at the bottom of the bottom of that list.
It’s kind of depressing, I guess, if you look at Eugene’s response to Ryan’s death. Former Chief Lehner definitely hijacked the tragedy to push his pet project – Tasers. The Lane County allegedly progressive Mental Health Community sort of hijacked it to push its pet project – Crisis Intervention Training. Neither the chief, the EPC nor the progressive mental health community activists thought to use the tragedy as an impetus to create an evidence-based, progressive policy to be included in the EPD POM like the Taser policy. In hindsight, “evidence-based policy for dealing with mentally unstable persons” would have been a much more useful first step than Tasers and Crisis Intervention Training.
For a long time, when I thought about Ryan, I felt a lot of anger that his parents and Doctors Frank and Strgar viewed his rejection of the Mormon Church in 2005 as a sign of mental illness, when it was actually a sign of mental health. But spending 25 hours a day being angry at Christianity and other imperfect human creations is also a sign of mental illness.
A few months ago, I was at Saturday Market and approaching the evangelical Christians on the northeast corner, right near the underground entrance to the Lane County Courthouse. I must have had an especially contentious week, because I remember thinking “I do not have the energy to heckle these people today.” Even though I didn’t want to heckle them like I usually did, I didn’t want to ignore them and let them think they’d won. So I made eye contact with one and smiled and said “You’re right – Jesus does love me!”
This is my peace with Christianity. I’m 99.[insert a gazillion 9s here]% sure that Jesus is dead. (Jesus is so dead…..how dead is he? Jesus is so dead that not even an anorexic amoeba wants anything to do with him!). But I’m equally sure that in the excruciatingly unlikely event that Jesus is risen, Jesus loves me. I am just as sure that Jesus loves me (if Jesus exists) as I am sure Jesus doesn’t exist. That’s what being a decision scientist in Eugene’ll do to you, I guess.
Good night and good duck.
The November 13, 2008 EPC meeting begins at 5:30 p.m., roughly nine hours before the two year anniversary of Denise Salisbury’s 2:47 a.m. call to 911 that initiated the tragic sequence of events. There is at least one important fact about that night that has been omitted.
In Rebecca Nolan’s November 15, 2006 article “1 dead in police shooting” it states: “Eugene police fatally shot a 19-year-old man Tuesday who had threatened his parents with a knife during a violent rampage at the family home in the southwest hills…His mother called police at 2:47 a.m. from the family home of Skyview Lane and said her son had threatened to stab her and her husband, police said."
Ms. Nolan’s report is consistent with two November 14, 2006 news releases from EPD Public Information Officer Melinda Kletzok. A 12:39 p.m. release says “Today, at 2;47 a.m., Eugene Police responded to a call from a woman at xxxx Skyview Lane who reported her young adult son had a serious mental illness, was acting out violently, and had threatened to stab her and her husband with a knife.”
By 4:02, this had been modified to read “Today, at 2:47 a.m., Eugene Police responded to a call from a woman at xxxx Skyview Lane who reported her young adult son had a serous mental illness, was armed with a knife acting out violently, and was threatening himself and his parents.”
That is, according to PIO Kletzok’s 12:39 press release, Denise Salisbury told the 911 dispatcher that Ryan was homicidal. According to her 4:02 press release, Mrs. Salisbury told the 911 dispatcher that Ryan was suicidal and homicidal.
The transcript from D.A. Harcleroad’s 3:00 p.m. press conference on November 17, 2006 states “Mrs. Salisbury told the police dispatcher that Ryan was carrying a large kitchen knife and threatening to harm himself if anybody tried to interfere with him….Ryan’s parents are positive that he was not a threat to anybody but himself.”
In the February 22, 2007 Use of Force Review by Lieutenant Scott Fellman, it says “The call for assistance originated when a female resident of the house, Denise Salisbury, called 911 and reported that her nineteen year old son, Ryan Salisbury, was armed with a knife and was threatening to kill himself.”
A report by EPD Detective Donica states that after Denise dialed 911, Jeffrey persuaded her to hang up and to try to handle the situation themselves. 911 dispatch called back and Mrs. Salisbury informed the call-taker-turned-call-maker that Ryan was suicidal. For reasons that have never been explored, the dispatcher mis-communicated critical information from Mrs. Salisbury to Trotter, Lowe, Sharlow & Hubbard.
I assume the reason Melinda provided false information in her 12:39 and 4:02 press releases on November 14, 2006 was to hide the fact that one component of the diagnosis of the policy and/or personnel failures that contributed to the tragedy was “the 911 dispatcher falsely communicated to the officers that Ryan was homicidal, not suicidal even though Mrs. and Mr. Salisbury went to extraordinary lengths to communicate to dispatch and maybe some of the officers their son’s lack of threateningness toward others despite his extreme threateningness toward self.
Former Chief Lehner, D. A. Harcleroad and soon-to-be D.A. Gardner colluded in hiding the role of 911 dispatch in the tragedy, opting instead to leave the community with the impression that Denise had told 911 Ryan was homicidal. Lehner, Harcleroad and Gardner chose to add to Denise’s suffering by allowing the false allegation about her made by Rebecca Nolan on November 15, 2006 based on Melinda Kletzok’s two false November 14, 2006 press release to remain uncorrected. Way to go, hombres!
Within 24 hours of Ryan’s death, thankfully-former Eugene Police Chief Robert M. Lehner informally absolved Officer Trotter of any wrongdoing. Mr. Lehner diagnosed two root causes of the tragedy – Eugene Police Department’s Taser-deficiency disorder and Lane County’s underfunded mental health care system. If only Officers Trotter, Lowe and Sharlow and Recruit Hubbard had a Taser-brand personal electrocution device in their arsenal in addition to an AR-15 rifle, 40 mm launcher and Sig Sauer .45 caliber handgun, it woulda been different!
According to Mrs. Salisbury, Ryan had recently changed psychiatrists from Randy Frank, a child specialist in Eugene to Franc Strgar, an adult specialist in Springfield. Doctor (sic) Strgar decided to double Ryan’s dosage of Wellbutrin, which he was taking in addition to Lexapro, Depakote, Klonipin, Zyprexa, Ambien and Lunestra [according to testimony by Denise Salisbury in the 06-21679/06-097637 files available from D.A. Harcleroad]. I’d say that Ryan suffered from a mental health care overdose from Frank&Franc, not a deficit as alleged by Mr. Lehner.
Within 72 hours of Ryan’s death, thankfully-soon-to-be-former Lane County District Attorney F. Douglass Harcleroad formally absolved Officer Trotter of any wrongdoing. Not surprisingly, but very belatedly, a February 22, 2007 Use of Force review by Lieutenant Scott Fellman confirmed LCDA Harcleroad’s November 16, 2006 verdict.
On the one year anniversary of Ryan’s death, we learned from Becky Nolan of the Eugene Register Guard that a closeted EPD officer had nominated Officer Trotter for a Medal of Valor award from the Oregon Peace Officers Association and that he had been awarded it for killing a suicidal teenager armed with a kitchen knife. We learned that “Many [mental health advocates] are frustrated that the police department has added another weapon to its arsenal – the controversial Taser – but done little to improve training for officers who are often the first to encounter people suffering from mental health problems.”
On the two year anniversary of Ryan’s death, the controversial Taser program has led to a contentious conflict on May 30, 2008 that will almost surely result in legal action against the city of Eugene. And Crest Elementary School Principal Alsup, EPD Lieutenant Bills, Lane County Mental Health Director Al Levine and Sue Archibald from NAMI are busy as beavers trying to get the Crisis Intervention Training up and running.
Of course, the most exciting news is that EPD plans to add a new policy to its Police Operations Manual. Proposed EPD POM Policy 418, drafted by Ellman Cushman with assistance from Police Planner Linda Phelps, specifies procedures for dealing with “suspected mentally ill persons” like Ryan Salisbury. Hopefully by the third anniversary of Mr. Salisbury’s death, EPD will initiate Crisis Intervention Training and maybe even have an evidence-based (i.e., a VERY distant) cousin of proposed Policy 418 that will provide guidance to EPD officers faced with the daunting task of dealing with suicidal and other cognitive and/or emotionally impaired citizens.
This daunting task is increasingly common for Lane County law enforcement agents, due to its chronic underfunding of proactive/pre-emptive public safety services to an even greater extent than its chronic underfunding of police/protective public safety services. Oregon ranks 50 in the nation in law enforcement personnel per capita. Lane County is the lowest of any county in Oregon on this measure. Do the math. It’s not pretty. If a comparable measure existed for “social service personnel per capita” Lane County would also be at the bottom of the bottom of that list.
It’s kind of depressing, I guess, if you look at Eugene’s response to Ryan’s death. Former Chief Lehner definitely hijacked the tragedy to push his pet project – Tasers. The Lane County allegedly progressive Mental Health Community sort of hijacked it to push its pet project – Crisis Intervention Training. Neither the chief, the EPC nor the progressive mental health community activists thought to use the tragedy as an impetus to create an evidence-based, progressive policy to be included in the EPD POM like the Taser policy. In hindsight, “evidence-based policy for dealing with mentally unstable persons” would have been a much more useful first step than Tasers and Crisis Intervention Training.
For a long time, when I thought about Ryan, I felt a lot of anger that his parents and Doctors Frank and Strgar viewed his rejection of the Mormon Church in 2005 as a sign of mental illness, when it was actually a sign of mental health. But spending 25 hours a day being angry at Christianity and other imperfect human creations is also a sign of mental illness.
A few months ago, I was at Saturday Market and approaching the evangelical Christians on the northeast corner, right near the underground entrance to the Lane County Courthouse. I must have had an especially contentious week, because I remember thinking “I do not have the energy to heckle these people today.” Even though I didn’t want to heckle them like I usually did, I didn’t want to ignore them and let them think they’d won. So I made eye contact with one and smiled and said “You’re right – Jesus does love me!”
This is my peace with Christianity. I’m 99.[insert a gazillion 9s here]% sure that Jesus is dead. (Jesus is so dead…..how dead is he? Jesus is so dead that not even an anorexic amoeba wants anything to do with him!). But I’m equally sure that in the excruciatingly unlikely event that Jesus is risen, Jesus loves me. I am just as sure that Jesus loves me (if Jesus exists) as I am sure Jesus doesn’t exist. That’s what being a decision scientist in Eugene’ll do to you, I guess.
Good night and good duck.
duplicitous duck?
I just noticed that Hearings Official Briggs devotes a whole page (4) to refuting my allegation that she was biased in favor of the applicant as a result of being a graduate of the University of Oregon. She wrote, “At the commencement of the October 7, 2008 public hearing, the hearings official explained that she believed that she did not have any financial conflicts of interest or bias that would prevent her from rendering a fair decision based on the criteria and evidence. She disclosed that she is a graduate of the University of Oregon School of Law, but explained that she did not believe that attendance at the university prevented her from considering the application on the merits.”
My memory is that Ms. Briggs just stated that she was a University of Oregon alumna. I do not remember her saying “School of Law” nor do I remember her “explaining that she did not believe that attendance at the university prevented her from considering the application on the merits.”
I can’t find the link to the video of the October 7, 2008 meeting to verify my hypothesis that Ms. Briggs did not even identify the Law School when she came out as a University of Oregon alumna, let alone address the issue of whether her affiliation with the University of Oregon Law School prejudiced her ability to evaluate a proposal from its former dean (Dave Frohnmayer) and primary benefactor (Phil Knight).
Since Ms. Briggs received her degree, the law school has moved and been renamed “William W. Knight Law Center.” William W. Knight is the father of Philip H. Knight, whose $100 million donation to the University of Oregon Athletic Fund (specifically earmarked as per 1.2.08 agreement for activities NOT related to the construction of a new basketball arena) increased the perceived safety of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education’s request for $200 million in bonds to build a new basketball arena.
If my (admittedly fuzzy) memory is correct and Ms. Briggs falsely described the content of her own comments at the October 7, 2008 public hearing on page 4 of her November 7, 2008 decision, then in the process of attempting to refute my allegation of Duck-bias, she has documented a lack of veracity that casts even greater doubt on the validity of her decision than I did.
Ms. Briggs cites a 1998 LUBA case (St. Johns Neighborhood vs. City of Portland) that identifies the conditions under which allegations of decision-maker bias can lead to the overturning of a land use decision.
>
My memory is that Ms. Briggs just stated that she was a University of Oregon alumna. I do not remember her saying “School of Law” nor do I remember her “explaining that she did not believe that attendance at the university prevented her from considering the application on the merits.”
I can’t find the link to the video of the October 7, 2008 meeting to verify my hypothesis that Ms. Briggs did not even identify the Law School when she came out as a University of Oregon alumna, let alone address the issue of whether her affiliation with the University of Oregon Law School prejudiced her ability to evaluate a proposal from its former dean (Dave Frohnmayer) and primary benefactor (Phil Knight).
Since Ms. Briggs received her degree, the law school has moved and been renamed “William W. Knight Law Center.” William W. Knight is the father of Philip H. Knight, whose $100 million donation to the University of Oregon Athletic Fund (specifically earmarked as per 1.2.08 agreement for activities NOT related to the construction of a new basketball arena) increased the perceived safety of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education’s request for $200 million in bonds to build a new basketball arena.
If my (admittedly fuzzy) memory is correct and Ms. Briggs falsely described the content of her own comments at the October 7, 2008 public hearing on page 4 of her November 7, 2008 decision, then in the process of attempting to refute my allegation of Duck-bias, she has documented a lack of veracity that casts even greater doubt on the validity of her decision than I did.
Ms. Briggs cites a 1998 LUBA case (St. Johns Neighborhood vs. City of Portland) that identifies the conditions under which allegations of decision-maker bias can lead to the overturning of a land use decision.
>
thanks zach
Zach,
Thanks for your comments at the Public Forum at the City Council meeting last night. I liked how you focused on the cozy collusion between the unFairmount Neighbors Association Chair Mark Gillem and the University of Oregon. Just like Zelenka is a shapeshifter who effortlessly morphs between his role as a City Councilor and his role as a Fairmount Neighbor, UO Assistant Professor of Architecture Gillem advances his personal agenda as a University of Oregon employee via his “public service” as Chair of the FNA.
It’s hard to believe City Manager Ruiz was willing to cosign a document with UO VP for Finance, Administration and Graft Frances Dyke, UO Assistant Professor of Architecture Mark Gillem and Shellie Robertson and alleged that it strikes a balance between the interests of the UO and the City of Eugene? Is it just me, or is this guy just begging for a one-way ticket back to Fresno?
Just undo it.
Deb
P.S. Good luck convincing the Fairmount Neighbors at 5:30 on Wednesday night to fork over the $1500 needed to appeal the aptly named HO Briggs' blatantly invalid decision. Like I said, Ms. Briggs is not the smartest duck in the pond!
From:* Alan Zelenka [mailto:alan@alanzelenka.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, April 06, 2008 10:25 PM
*To:* RIKHOFF Greg (UO); 'Eric Stillwell'; suesolar@comcast.net; JAKABOSKY Sue (SMTP); BAROFSKY John (SMTP); ZELENKA Alan; KLUTE Danny (SMTP); WRIGHT Rick (SMTP); GARDNER Lisa A; OCHS Steve P; 'Marilyn Milne'; INERFELD Rob; RUFFIER Peter J; GALLUP Steve S; VOBORA Andy J; RAMEY Christopher (UO); charleshare@hotmail.com; jacobs@mobile.uoregon.edu; trig@uoregon.edu; FLOCK Gabriel
*Cc:* BEALS Bob (UO); 'Laura Hazlett'; 'Phil Weiler'; BROWN Julie (UO); 'Erik Judson'; NELSON Jeff (SUB); 'Kacie Renc'; 'Darin Dehle'; Matt-Swaim@hoffmancorp.com; 'Karen Scheeland'; 'Peter Roberts'
*Subject:* RE: Neighborhood Arena Liaison Committee meeting Wednesday, April 2, 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Place to be determined
I looked and can't find the e-mail from city staff on parking at the Romania lot. I'll ask the question again and pass-on what I find out.
Alan Zelenka
Eugene City Councilor Ward 3
Thanks for your comments at the Public Forum at the City Council meeting last night. I liked how you focused on the cozy collusion between the unFairmount Neighbors Association Chair Mark Gillem and the University of Oregon. Just like Zelenka is a shapeshifter who effortlessly morphs between his role as a City Councilor and his role as a Fairmount Neighbor, UO Assistant Professor of Architecture Gillem advances his personal agenda as a University of Oregon employee via his “public service” as Chair of the FNA.
It’s hard to believe City Manager Ruiz was willing to cosign a document with UO VP for Finance, Administration and Graft Frances Dyke, UO Assistant Professor of Architecture Mark Gillem and Shellie Robertson and alleged that it strikes a balance between the interests of the UO and the City of Eugene? Is it just me, or is this guy just begging for a one-way ticket back to Fresno?
Just undo it.
Deb
P.S. Good luck convincing the Fairmount Neighbors at 5:30 on Wednesday night to fork over the $1500 needed to appeal the aptly named HO Briggs' blatantly invalid decision. Like I said, Ms. Briggs is not the smartest duck in the pond!
From:* Alan Zelenka [mailto:alan@alanzelenka.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, April 06, 2008 10:25 PM
*To:* RIKHOFF Greg (UO); 'Eric Stillwell'; suesolar@comcast.net; JAKABOSKY Sue (SMTP); BAROFSKY John (SMTP); ZELENKA Alan; KLUTE Danny (SMTP); WRIGHT Rick (SMTP); GARDNER Lisa A; OCHS Steve P; 'Marilyn Milne'; INERFELD Rob; RUFFIER Peter J; GALLUP Steve S; VOBORA Andy J; RAMEY Christopher (UO); charleshare@hotmail.com; jacobs@mobile.uoregon.edu; trig@uoregon.edu; FLOCK Gabriel
*Cc:* BEALS Bob (UO); 'Laura Hazlett'; 'Phil Weiler'; BROWN Julie (UO); 'Erik Judson'; NELSON Jeff (SUB); 'Kacie Renc'; 'Darin Dehle'; Matt-Swaim@hoffmancorp.com; 'Karen Scheeland'; 'Peter Roberts'
*Subject:* RE: Neighborhood Arena Liaison Committee meeting Wednesday, April 2, 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Place to be determined
I looked and can't find the e-mail from city staff on parking at the Romania lot. I'll ask the question again and pass-on what I find out.
Alan Zelenka
Eugene City Councilor Ward 3
Monday, November 10, 2008
query for HO Briggs
Section 9.8090 of the Eugene City Code contains the criteria for approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit. Subsection 5 contains requirements intended to “minimize impacts to the natural environment. Sub-subsection 5d applies to “street trees.” 9.8090(5)(d) states “If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process at EC 6.305 of this code."
Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs wrote:
Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that the applicant is proposing to remove a historic street tree in the Franklin Boulevard media by extending the eastbound left turn lane at Agate Street. The City’s Urban Forester [Mark Snyder] has confirmed that the referenced tree qualifies as a historic street tree according to the provisions of the Eugene City Charter by having over a 25-inch circumference and being over 50 years old. Additionally, the Urban Forester found that the proposed extension of the turn lane may impact a second historical tree. Due to past impacts it would take only a small amount of additional impact to be considered a technical felling.
Section 52 of the City Charter provides that the City may not enter into any agreement approving or facilitating the widening of a street, road or freeway if the widening will result in the removal of any historic street trees, unless the removal is approved by a majority of voters in the City. Subsection 5 of the same section exempts trees from the vote requirement if the project is designed to improve an intersection. The proposed left turn lane is at the Franklin/Agate intersection and the project is designed to improve the movement of traffic within the intersection; therefore, no City-wide vote is required to remove the tree(s).
The applicant will need to obtain applicable permits pursuant to EC 6.305 if these or other street trees are removed. To ensure compliance with the street tree removal criteria the following condition is warranted: The final CUP plans shall be revised to note that street tree removals must meet the permit and replacement value requirements of EC 6.305(3) and note that new street trees require planting plans approved by the City’s Urban Forester.
As conditioned, EC 9.8090(5) is satisfied.
QUESTION: HO Briggs alleges that EC 9.8090(5d) is satisfied. EC 9.8090(5d) requires that any necessary street tree removal permit either:
a. has been approved
OR
b. has been approved with conditions
As of November 7, 2008 (the date HO Briggs mailed the decision, a day after the mandated deadline) the applicant HAD NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT YET. Thus, Ms. Briggs either believes that “hasn’t yet applied for a street tree removal permit yet” is equivalent to "a: has been approved" or "b: has been approved with conditions," since she believes the condition was “satisfied.”
I am very curious whether Ms. Briggs alleges that condition 9.8090(5d) was satisfied by criterion a (has been approved) or criterion b (has been approved with conditions). Personally, it’s hard for me to see how “hasn’t yet applied for a permit” satisfies a or b so I’m eager as a beaver to hear Ms. Briggs’ response!
Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs wrote:
Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm that the applicant is proposing to remove a historic street tree in the Franklin Boulevard media by extending the eastbound left turn lane at Agate Street. The City’s Urban Forester [Mark Snyder] has confirmed that the referenced tree qualifies as a historic street tree according to the provisions of the Eugene City Charter by having over a 25-inch circumference and being over 50 years old. Additionally, the Urban Forester found that the proposed extension of the turn lane may impact a second historical tree. Due to past impacts it would take only a small amount of additional impact to be considered a technical felling.
Section 52 of the City Charter provides that the City may not enter into any agreement approving or facilitating the widening of a street, road or freeway if the widening will result in the removal of any historic street trees, unless the removal is approved by a majority of voters in the City. Subsection 5 of the same section exempts trees from the vote requirement if the project is designed to improve an intersection. The proposed left turn lane is at the Franklin/Agate intersection and the project is designed to improve the movement of traffic within the intersection; therefore, no City-wide vote is required to remove the tree(s).
The applicant will need to obtain applicable permits pursuant to EC 6.305 if these or other street trees are removed. To ensure compliance with the street tree removal criteria the following condition is warranted: The final CUP plans shall be revised to note that street tree removals must meet the permit and replacement value requirements of EC 6.305(3) and note that new street trees require planting plans approved by the City’s Urban Forester.
As conditioned, EC 9.8090(5) is satisfied.
QUESTION: HO Briggs alleges that EC 9.8090(5d) is satisfied. EC 9.8090(5d) requires that any necessary street tree removal permit either:
a. has been approved
OR
b. has been approved with conditions
As of November 7, 2008 (the date HO Briggs mailed the decision, a day after the mandated deadline) the applicant HAD NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT YET. Thus, Ms. Briggs either believes that “hasn’t yet applied for a street tree removal permit yet” is equivalent to "a: has been approved" or "b: has been approved with conditions," since she believes the condition was “satisfied.”
I am very curious whether Ms. Briggs alleges that condition 9.8090(5d) was satisfied by criterion a (has been approved) or criterion b (has been approved with conditions). Personally, it’s hard for me to see how “hasn’t yet applied for a permit” satisfies a or b so I’m eager as a beaver to hear Ms. Briggs’ response!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
luba 2008-156/157
Yesterday, I received a “response brief of respondent City of Eugene and intervenor-respondent Oregon State Board of Higher Education.” The 23 page brief by Oregon Department of Justice Assistant Attorney Generals Steven E. Shipsey (94435) and Erin L. Donald (04273) [on behalf of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education] and Emily Jerome of Harrang, Long, Gary & Rudnick [on behalf of the City of Eugene] addressed issues raised by Petitioner Bowers in his 38-page brief and by me in my 5-page brief.
From the middle of page 13 to the middle of page 16, Respondent Jerome and Intervenor- Respondents Shipsey and Donald address the specific issues raised by Petitioner Bowers. From the middle of page 16 to the middle of page 23, the representatives of the City of Eugene (Jerome) and Oregon State Board of Higher Education (Shipsey, Donald) address the specific issues raised by Intervenor-Petitioner Frisch.
I take pride in the fact that Jerome, Shipsey and Donald devoted twice as much space to my brief as they did to the petitioner’s, even though mine was an eighth the size of his. I agree with them 103.14159% that the fifth year journalism student at the University of Oregon “misunderstands the scope of relevant evidence to a right-of-way vacation request” and that “This misunderstanding is demonstrated by the way he frames what is, in his opinion, the appropriate analysis for the vacation requests.” I agree that “In addition to basing his argument on factors that are not relevant to the public interest determination on which the City must base its vacation determinations, Petitioner’s brief is based, in large part, on evidence not in the record.”
I shall opine about the Jerome, Shipsey and Donald brief in due time but I would just like to note one very queer fact. In the Conditional Use Permit process, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education/Oregon University System/University of Oregon was the applicant requesting a permit from the City of Eugene. In the LUBA process, OSBHE and the City of Eugene are collaborators in opposing Petitioner Bowers and me.
Isn’t it a bit batty for OSBHE to intervene on behalf of the City of Eugene re: LUBA 2008-156/157, when the sole decision maker on behalf of City of Eugene (Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs) alleged the she and the other City of Eugene employees who participated in the uber-labor-intensive CU 08-4 evaluation process were capable of an unbiased assessment of the CUP application from OSBHE (a.k.a. UO)? In CU 08-4, it was OSBHE vs. City of Eugene. In LUBA 2008-156/157, it’s OSBHE and City of Eugene vs. Bowers and me. Is that really kosher?
From the middle of page 13 to the middle of page 16, Respondent Jerome and Intervenor- Respondents Shipsey and Donald address the specific issues raised by Petitioner Bowers. From the middle of page 16 to the middle of page 23, the representatives of the City of Eugene (Jerome) and Oregon State Board of Higher Education (Shipsey, Donald) address the specific issues raised by Intervenor-Petitioner Frisch.
I take pride in the fact that Jerome, Shipsey and Donald devoted twice as much space to my brief as they did to the petitioner’s, even though mine was an eighth the size of his. I agree with them 103.14159% that the fifth year journalism student at the University of Oregon “misunderstands the scope of relevant evidence to a right-of-way vacation request” and that “This misunderstanding is demonstrated by the way he frames what is, in his opinion, the appropriate analysis for the vacation requests.” I agree that “In addition to basing his argument on factors that are not relevant to the public interest determination on which the City must base its vacation determinations, Petitioner’s brief is based, in large part, on evidence not in the record.”
I shall opine about the Jerome, Shipsey and Donald brief in due time but I would just like to note one very queer fact. In the Conditional Use Permit process, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education/Oregon University System/University of Oregon was the applicant requesting a permit from the City of Eugene. In the LUBA process, OSBHE and the City of Eugene are collaborators in opposing Petitioner Bowers and me.
Isn’t it a bit batty for OSBHE to intervene on behalf of the City of Eugene re: LUBA 2008-156/157, when the sole decision maker on behalf of City of Eugene (Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs) alleged the she and the other City of Eugene employees who participated in the uber-labor-intensive CU 08-4 evaluation process were capable of an unbiased assessment of the CUP application from OSBHE (a.k.a. UO)? In CU 08-4, it was OSBHE vs. City of Eugene. In LUBA 2008-156/157, it’s OSBHE and City of Eugene vs. Bowers and me. Is that really kosher?
eugene pseudoscience commission
Birth to Three is a nonprofit social service agency in Eugene that I think was started by the wife of former Oregon Research Institute/Decision Research psychologist (now Carnegie Mellon University professor) Baruch Fischhoff in 1978. On October 20, 2008 the Eugene Register Guard published an article by Laura Ruggeri about Jennifer and Juan Carlos Wuite-Valle, a Eugene couple who were greatly helped by Birth to Three after the birth of their daughter, Amalie.
"Wuite de Valle and her husband knew about Birth to Three because he was working with the organization while doing work for his masters degree. These days, Juan Carlos Valle is on the board of directors of Birth to Three."
Mr. Valle is also a Eugene Police Commissioner. The Eugene Police Commission consists of a dozen citizens (chosen quasi-randomly by the Eugene City Council) who know nothing about policing, policy or research charged with the task of doing research on police policy. The result is what you'd expect - neuron-numbing pseudoscience that leads to absurdly cost-ineffective police policy decisions that expose citizens to unnecessary physical risk and taxpayers to huge financial liability, as a result of creating a paper trail documenting the enactment of blatantly illegal and/or civil-rights-violating public policy.
In 2005, the Eugene Police Commission created the Police Auditor/Civilian Review Board. In 2007, it created a Taser pilot program for EPD officers. Both of these actions have led to incidents in which citizens have initiated legal action against the city of Eugene. There is at least one civil suit pending in Federal court related to the lax internal affairs policies that have plagued EPD for a long time.
According to the LCC website, "Mr. Valle was a homeless immigrant when he arrived in Eugene, barely speaking English and lacking a high-school diploma. Eugene's Centro LatinoAmericano gave him shelter and access to education. Valle went on to earn an Associate's degree in Hospitality Management at Lane, and a Bachelor's degree in Spanish and Business Administration at the University of Oregon. Then, having found himself working in a series of public-sector jobs, Valle refocused and sought a Master's degree in Public Policy and Administration, which he will completed in 2008. Valle works for the Social Security Administration in Eugene. He also sits on the Boards of Directors for Centro LatinoAmericano Birth to Three, and serves as a commissioner for the Eugene police commission."
Mr. Valle is as good as it gets on the Eugene Police Commission. Despite the fact that he is at a disadvantage relative to the other 11 commissioners as a result of being a non-native speaker and growing up in a socio-economically disadvantaged environment, he is by far (not just heads and shoulders but calves and ankles too) the most competent member of the dismal dozen decision-makers. Mr. Valle is the chair of the Policy Review subcommittee of the Eugene Police Commission.
The process for 418 is that someone named Ellman Cushman in the chief's office wrote a scientifically illiterate/pragmatically infeasible first draft which was then discussed at an Eugene Police Commission meeting while Ellman and his colleague in the chief's office, Police Planner Linda Phelps sat with blank stares on their faces, presumably absorbing information that they would use to create Draft #2 of EPD 418. EPD Lieutenant Jennifer Bills, who specializes in this type of issue (mental illness, crisis intervention) was allowed to sit in the room while the commissioners chatted about Ellman's draft of 418 but it was not clear she was allowed to have any input into the creation of the policy. Lane County Mental Health Director Al Levine allegedly met with thankfully-former EPD Chief Lehner (MBA, Eller College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona) once a week, but like Lieutenant Bills, Director Levine was excluded from the process managed by Cushman and Phelps, despite their enormous expertise in the area.
I am wondering if the UO Public Policy and Administration graduate believes the process by which current EPD policy is revised and new EPD policy is created (e.g., 418 "Suspected Mentally Ill Persons" which is currently in the pipeline) conforms to basic principles of rational/sound policy development. It would also be interesting to hear what Baruch Fischhoff, Howard Heinz University Professor of Social and Decision Sciences and Engineering and Public Policy (not to mention, father of Birth to Three!) has to say about the Eugene Pseudoscience (oops, I mean Police, sorry, my bad!) Commission''s role in creating police policy in Eugene.
"Wuite de Valle and her husband knew about Birth to Three because he was working with the organization while doing work for his masters degree. These days, Juan Carlos Valle is on the board of directors of Birth to Three."
Mr. Valle is also a Eugene Police Commissioner. The Eugene Police Commission consists of a dozen citizens (chosen quasi-randomly by the Eugene City Council) who know nothing about policing, policy or research charged with the task of doing research on police policy. The result is what you'd expect - neuron-numbing pseudoscience that leads to absurdly cost-ineffective police policy decisions that expose citizens to unnecessary physical risk and taxpayers to huge financial liability, as a result of creating a paper trail documenting the enactment of blatantly illegal and/or civil-rights-violating public policy.
In 2005, the Eugene Police Commission created the Police Auditor/Civilian Review Board. In 2007, it created a Taser pilot program for EPD officers. Both of these actions have led to incidents in which citizens have initiated legal action against the city of Eugene. There is at least one civil suit pending in Federal court related to the lax internal affairs policies that have plagued EPD for a long time.
According to the LCC website, "Mr. Valle was a homeless immigrant when he arrived in Eugene, barely speaking English and lacking a high-school diploma. Eugene's Centro LatinoAmericano gave him shelter and access to education. Valle went on to earn an Associate's degree in Hospitality Management at Lane, and a Bachelor's degree in Spanish and Business Administration at the University of Oregon. Then, having found himself working in a series of public-sector jobs, Valle refocused and sought a Master's degree in Public Policy and Administration, which he will completed in 2008. Valle works for the Social Security Administration in Eugene. He also sits on the Boards of Directors for Centro LatinoAmericano Birth to Three, and serves as a commissioner for the Eugene police commission."
Mr. Valle is as good as it gets on the Eugene Police Commission. Despite the fact that he is at a disadvantage relative to the other 11 commissioners as a result of being a non-native speaker and growing up in a socio-economically disadvantaged environment, he is by far (not just heads and shoulders but calves and ankles too) the most competent member of the dismal dozen decision-makers. Mr. Valle is the chair of the Policy Review subcommittee of the Eugene Police Commission.
The process for 418 is that someone named Ellman Cushman in the chief's office wrote a scientifically illiterate/pragmatically infeasible first draft which was then discussed at an Eugene Police Commission meeting while Ellman and his colleague in the chief's office, Police Planner Linda Phelps sat with blank stares on their faces, presumably absorbing information that they would use to create Draft #2 of EPD 418. EPD Lieutenant Jennifer Bills, who specializes in this type of issue (mental illness, crisis intervention) was allowed to sit in the room while the commissioners chatted about Ellman's draft of 418 but it was not clear she was allowed to have any input into the creation of the policy. Lane County Mental Health Director Al Levine allegedly met with thankfully-former EPD Chief Lehner (MBA, Eller College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona) once a week, but like Lieutenant Bills, Director Levine was excluded from the process managed by Cushman and Phelps, despite their enormous expertise in the area.
I am wondering if the UO Public Policy and Administration graduate believes the process by which current EPD policy is revised and new EPD policy is created (e.g., 418 "Suspected Mentally Ill Persons" which is currently in the pipeline) conforms to basic principles of rational/sound policy development. It would also be interesting to hear what Baruch Fischhoff, Howard Heinz University Professor of Social and Decision Sciences and Engineering and Public Policy (not to mention, father of Birth to Three!) has to say about the Eugene Pseudoscience (oops, I mean Police, sorry, my bad!) Commission''s role in creating police policy in Eugene.
commissioner of the valley
Coming into this world 6½ weeks early meant Amalie Valle-Wuite’s parents had to keep her in the house for the first three months of her life as part of her care.
But once she hit the three-month mark and was able to travel outside of the house, the family started attending a Birth to Three parenting group one night a week.
“The singular focus was help me, help me figure out this little bundle of joy I just got,” Jenifer Wuite de Valle said of the Birth to Three group she and her husband [Eugene Police Commissioner] Juan Carlos Valle attended with their daughter.
For Wuite de Valle, the group not only got her out of the house, it allowed her to learn more about her daughter and acted as a support group.
“Just getting out of the house and being with people in the same situation gave me a weekly focus,” she said.
Birth to Three is a United Way funded organization that provides services and programs to parents and children. This year, Birth to Three received $85,654 from United Way.
Birth to Three was founded in 1978 in Eugene. Its curriculum is used at more than 600 sites in the United States and in several other countries.
“Eugene is very lucky, very lucky to have this because other communities are just dying for this kind of support,” Wuite de Valle said.
The great thing about Birth to Three is that it is not a prescribed program, Wuite de Valle said. The teacher of the group would present information, and then group members could take what they needed from it and adopt it to their own parenting styles, she said.
“You made it your own learning,” Wuite de Valle said.
Wuite de Valle and her husband knew about Birth to Three because he was working with the organization while doing work for his masters degree. These days, Juan Carlos Valle is on the board of directors of Birth to Three.
The environment of the group was warm and inviting, Wuite de Valle said, and group members were empathetic. The teacher would try to give support or resources tailored to the group members’ needs, she said.
For Wuite de Valle and her husband, cultural differences in parenting styles was something they anticipated, and they were able to take the things they’d learned at Birth to Three and be more open about expectations and needs, she said.
“We’ve always had cultural expectations within our relationship, and we’ve been able to work our way through them, but it was just the two of us working our way through it and coming to a mutual agreement or understanding,” Wuite de Valle said. “And then when you add a third little person you have to set yourselves aside and focus on the greater good and the child. And that was one thing that Birth to Three really helped us with.”
Now that their daughter is 5, they are much more comfortable about opening the dialog about the new stages of her life, Wuite de Valle said.
“Birth to Three opened the doors for us to communicate in the future about raising her,” she said.
Wuite de Valle also suffered from postpartum depression after her daughter was born and found that the Birth to Three group helped her get through the tough times and feelings of being overwhelmed.
“It got to the point where I would hear the cry and I didn’t want to get out of bed, even though I knew that was what I was supposed to do, I just didn’t want to,” Wuite de Valle said.
“I physically couldn’t get out of bed to do it. I’d force myself to do it,” she said, her voice catching and tears welling up in her eyes.
Her mother was helping out, but Wuite de Valle’s feelings weren’t going away. “Even having that extra support wasn’t helping me get through whatever I was going through internally,” she said.
At the urging of her husband, Wuite de Valle had an evaluation and was diagnosed with postpartum depression. “I had to make some hard choices because part of it is if you follow the correct treatment you have to stop breast feeding and take medication,” she said. “And I had to weigh those choices.”
Wuite de Valle decided to breast feed her child and figure out other ways of support to deal with her postpartum depression, she said. One of those ways was the weekly Birth to Three group.
“I started, little bit by little bit, feeling like I could leave the house,” Wuite de Valle said.
Wuite de Valle also started walking. It started with a block, she said, then two blocks, and after a month she had worked up to a mile. By the time she reached the end of her maternity leave, Wuite de Valle was walking a full hour outside every day, she said.
“That and the Birth to Three group was what kept me going,” she said.
Friday, November 7, 2008
next move
Regardless of the decision made by Hearings Official Briggs last night, I think the next move has to be filing a complaint with the Oregon State Bar against Glenn Klein, Melinda Grier and Meg Kieran for their one paragraph October 16, 2008 memo accompanying the 7 page Arena Mitigation Agreement cosigned on October 17, 2008 by Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz, University of Oregon Vice President for Finance, Administration and Graft Frances Dyke and Fairmount Neighborhood Association Co-Chairs Mark Gillem and Shellie Robertson.
The memo from Eugene City Attorney Klein, UO General Counsel Grier and FNA Counsel Kieran states "As indicated at the October 7 public hearing, the City of Eugene, University of Oregon and Fairmount Neighbors Association have been working toward an agreement concerning mitigation measures that will evidence the Arena's compliance with certain applicable CUP criteria. This letter is to inform you that the three parties have successfully completed their work and have executed an Arena Impact Mitigation Agreement. A copy of the agreement is enclosed. This agreement should serve as evidence in this CUP proceeding that the University is bound to complete a number of mitigation measures that will alleviate the impacts of the Arena on nearby residential neighborhoods. The agreement represents a sincere and comprehensive effort on behalf of all three parties to come to terms on these mitigation measures."
The seven page Arena Mitigation Agreement by Ruiz, Dyke, Gillem & Robertson that Klein, Grier and Kieran allege will "evidence the Arena's compliance with certain applicable CUP criteria" does not cite a single of the eight subsections of the relevant section (9.8090) of the Eugene City Code.
In his October 17, 2008 public testimony to HO Briggs on behalf of Durall Investments, LLC, a stakeholder excluded by the unfairmount neighbors association, Ty Wyman of Dunn, Carney, Allen, Higgins & Tongue of Portland cited Section 9.6430 in justifying his allegation that the applicant had failed to provide an adequate amount of parking, thus exposing Durall Investments, LLC to chronic harm from arena visitors illegally parking in their retail center "across Villard, east of the proposed arena" containing Hirons and Market of Choice. Similarly, in my October 17, 2008 public testimony to HO Briggs (see below), I cited several sections of the relevant city code.
Yet in their October 16, 2008 testimony to HO Briggs, Klein, Grier and Kieran present a document with no reference at all to the relevant sections of the code.
Regardless of whether Klein, Grier and Kieran were incompetent, "disingenuous (as alleged by Mr. Wyman in his October 17, 2008 testimony)" or intentionally deceptive (as I alleged about City Attorney Klein in my LUBA testimony re: 2008-156/157), their blatantly false allegation that the agreement cosigned by Ruiz, Dyke, Gillem and Robertson counts as evidence of compliance with section 9.8090 of the Eugene City Code warrants a letter to the Oregon State Bar.
October 17, 2008
To: Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs
From: Deborah Frisch, Ph.D. (3003 W. 11^th PMB 168, Eugene, OR 97402)
Re: Testimony re: arena CUP
1.Section 9.8090(1) of the CUP criteria requires compliance with the "applicable provisions of the Metro Plan." On page 4 of CU 08-4, Section 9.8570 "Fairmount/U of O Special Study Area" is identified as the relevant part of the Metro Plan.
Section 3f3 of 9.8570 states "The City shall not grant conditional use permits to more than seven of the tax lots in the Low Density Residential area and no more than five of the seven tax lots having a conditional use permit shall be located along Villard Street." There are 19 tax lots involved in this project [Section 17-03-32-41 of the assessors map (1000, 1300, 1400, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3300) and Section 17-03-33-32 (5800, 5801, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6300, 6400, 6500, 8200, 8300).] It is not clear whether granting CUP to these 19 lots conforms to Section 9.8090(1) of the Eugene City code.
2. Section 9.8090(8c) states "The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater destination, pollution reduction, flow control for head waters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance."
On page 21 of CU 08-4 it says "As noted in the applicant's Geotechnical Evaluation, groundwater is consistently encountered at depths of 7 to 12 feet, and there is no indication on the plans how that groundwater is proposed to be handled." Further evidence of the inadequacy of the current wastewater management plan is that fact that Items 5-6 on the 18 item to do list (pp. 38-40) involve wastewater management.
3. The Oregon University System recently acquired ODOT property on Franklin Blvd. This property is sometimes assumed to be available for parking use for the arena.
Section 9.9570(2a) of the Eugene City Code states that "Future use of the ODOT lands shall be primarily residential." Using the ODOT property for a parking lot would violate 9.9570(2a) of the Eugene City Code.
4. The vast majority of testimony at the October 7, 2008 arena Conditional Use Permit hearing was completely irrelevant to the task of determining whether the 40 page document prepared by City of Eugene Associate Planner Ochs conforms to Section 9.8090 of the Eugene City Code.
However, while the Hearings Official was extraordinarily lenient regarding the relevance of the testimony from the witnesses who testified on behalf of the applicant (UO President Frohnmayer, TVA Architect Thompson, UO Spokesman Rikhoff, etc.), those who testified in favor of granting the CUP (Councilor/FNA member Zelenka, etc.) and those who were neutral (Mrs./FNA Member Zelenka, FNA member Nelson, FNA member Jakobosky, etc.), she interrupted Mr. Vishanoff (who spoke against the permit) for alleged lack of relevance.
The Hearings Official’s blatant bias in favor of the applicant was also exhibited by her decision to allow propaganda for the applicant to be placed on the table at the front of the chambers usually reserved for documents produced by the City of Eugene. Indeed, the hefty handout prepared by Mr. Ochs was on the sign-in table, while the glossy green handout entitled “Fact sheet for the University of Oregon Arena Conditional Use Permit Application to the City of Eugene, Oregon 10/7/08” prepared by "Government and Community Relations" at the University of Oregon was on the front table.
The Hearings Official falsely alleged that since she doesn't live in Eugene or have a financial stake in the matter, we should conclude that she is not biased, even though she bragged about having a degree from the University of Oregon. I say once a duck, always a duck.
The memo from Eugene City Attorney Klein, UO General Counsel Grier and FNA Counsel Kieran states "As indicated at the October 7 public hearing, the City of Eugene, University of Oregon and Fairmount Neighbors Association have been working toward an agreement concerning mitigation measures that will evidence the Arena's compliance with certain applicable CUP criteria. This letter is to inform you that the three parties have successfully completed their work and have executed an Arena Impact Mitigation Agreement. A copy of the agreement is enclosed. This agreement should serve as evidence in this CUP proceeding that the University is bound to complete a number of mitigation measures that will alleviate the impacts of the Arena on nearby residential neighborhoods. The agreement represents a sincere and comprehensive effort on behalf of all three parties to come to terms on these mitigation measures."
The seven page Arena Mitigation Agreement by Ruiz, Dyke, Gillem & Robertson that Klein, Grier and Kieran allege will "evidence the Arena's compliance with certain applicable CUP criteria" does not cite a single of the eight subsections of the relevant section (9.8090) of the Eugene City Code.
In his October 17, 2008 public testimony to HO Briggs on behalf of Durall Investments, LLC, a stakeholder excluded by the unfairmount neighbors association, Ty Wyman of Dunn, Carney, Allen, Higgins & Tongue of Portland cited Section 9.6430 in justifying his allegation that the applicant had failed to provide an adequate amount of parking, thus exposing Durall Investments, LLC to chronic harm from arena visitors illegally parking in their retail center "across Villard, east of the proposed arena" containing Hirons and Market of Choice. Similarly, in my October 17, 2008 public testimony to HO Briggs (see below), I cited several sections of the relevant city code.
Yet in their October 16, 2008 testimony to HO Briggs, Klein, Grier and Kieran present a document with no reference at all to the relevant sections of the code.
Regardless of whether Klein, Grier and Kieran were incompetent, "disingenuous (as alleged by Mr. Wyman in his October 17, 2008 testimony)" or intentionally deceptive (as I alleged about City Attorney Klein in my LUBA testimony re: 2008-156/157), their blatantly false allegation that the agreement cosigned by Ruiz, Dyke, Gillem and Robertson counts as evidence of compliance with section 9.8090 of the Eugene City Code warrants a letter to the Oregon State Bar.
October 17, 2008
To: Hearings Official Anne Corcoran Briggs
From: Deborah Frisch, Ph.D. (3003 W. 11^th PMB 168, Eugene, OR 97402)
Re: Testimony re: arena CUP
1.Section 9.8090(1) of the CUP criteria requires compliance with the "applicable provisions of the Metro Plan." On page 4 of CU 08-4, Section 9.8570 "Fairmount/U of O Special Study Area" is identified as the relevant part of the Metro Plan.
Section 3f3 of 9.8570 states "The City shall not grant conditional use permits to more than seven of the tax lots in the Low Density Residential area and no more than five of the seven tax lots having a conditional use permit shall be located along Villard Street." There are 19 tax lots involved in this project [Section 17-03-32-41 of the assessors map (1000, 1300, 1400, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3300) and Section 17-03-33-32 (5800, 5801, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6300, 6400, 6500, 8200, 8300).] It is not clear whether granting CUP to these 19 lots conforms to Section 9.8090(1) of the Eugene City code.
2. Section 9.8090(8c) states "The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater destination, pollution reduction, flow control for head waters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and maintenance."
On page 21 of CU 08-4 it says "As noted in the applicant's Geotechnical Evaluation, groundwater is consistently encountered at depths of 7 to 12 feet, and there is no indication on the plans how that groundwater is proposed to be handled." Further evidence of the inadequacy of the current wastewater management plan is that fact that Items 5-6 on the 18 item to do list (pp. 38-40) involve wastewater management.
3. The Oregon University System recently acquired ODOT property on Franklin Blvd. This property is sometimes assumed to be available for parking use for the arena.
Section 9.9570(2a) of the Eugene City Code states that "Future use of the ODOT lands shall be primarily residential." Using the ODOT property for a parking lot would violate 9.9570(2a) of the Eugene City Code.
4. The vast majority of testimony at the October 7, 2008 arena Conditional Use Permit hearing was completely irrelevant to the task of determining whether the 40 page document prepared by City of Eugene Associate Planner Ochs conforms to Section 9.8090 of the Eugene City Code.
However, while the Hearings Official was extraordinarily lenient regarding the relevance of the testimony from the witnesses who testified on behalf of the applicant (UO President Frohnmayer, TVA Architect Thompson, UO Spokesman Rikhoff, etc.), those who testified in favor of granting the CUP (Councilor/FNA member Zelenka, etc.) and those who were neutral (Mrs./FNA Member Zelenka, FNA member Nelson, FNA member Jakobosky, etc.), she interrupted Mr. Vishanoff (who spoke against the permit) for alleged lack of relevance.
The Hearings Official’s blatant bias in favor of the applicant was also exhibited by her decision to allow propaganda for the applicant to be placed on the table at the front of the chambers usually reserved for documents produced by the City of Eugene. Indeed, the hefty handout prepared by Mr. Ochs was on the sign-in table, while the glossy green handout entitled “Fact sheet for the University of Oregon Arena Conditional Use Permit Application to the City of Eugene, Oregon 10/7/08” prepared by "Government and Community Relations" at the University of Oregon was on the front table.
The Hearings Official falsely alleged that since she doesn't live in Eugene or have a financial stake in the matter, we should conclude that she is not biased, even though she bragged about having a degree from the University of Oregon. I say once a duck, always a duck.
green light for grande mac court?
greg dolt of the inbredgister guard:
A hearings officer has approved a conditional use permit that could allow the University of Oregon to begin work on its $227 million basketball arena in two weeks.
The approval is a crucial step that puts the UO almost at the finish line in its years-long effort to build the 12,500-seat pavilion, which currently would be the most expensive college arena ever built. If the decision is not appealed, construction could start Nov. 13.
Hearings officer Anne Corcoran Briggs found that the university’s construction plan and a mitigation plan worked out between the UO and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association largely satisfy the requirements for a conditional use permit. She tacked on a list of 16 conditions, most of which address technical land-use issues such as utility connections, landscaping and setbacks.
Briggs accepted the parking and traffic plan worked out by the university and neighbors, which includes an event parking district aimed at reducing the number of cars that park on neighborhood streets during large events. But she did not agree with neighbors who want a limit on the number of large events that could be held at the arena.
The arena project has pushed through numerous delays over a time line that goes back several years. Rising costs, a controversial financing plan that went all the way to the state Legislature and neighborhood concerns about traffic have all posed hurdles.
One more possible delay remains. The hearings officer’s decision can be appealed to the city planning commission, which would delay the project another month.
A hearings officer has approved a conditional use permit that could allow the University of Oregon to begin work on its $227 million basketball arena in two weeks.
The approval is a crucial step that puts the UO almost at the finish line in its years-long effort to build the 12,500-seat pavilion, which currently would be the most expensive college arena ever built. If the decision is not appealed, construction could start Nov. 13.
Hearings officer Anne Corcoran Briggs found that the university’s construction plan and a mitigation plan worked out between the UO and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association largely satisfy the requirements for a conditional use permit. She tacked on a list of 16 conditions, most of which address technical land-use issues such as utility connections, landscaping and setbacks.
Briggs accepted the parking and traffic plan worked out by the university and neighbors, which includes an event parking district aimed at reducing the number of cars that park on neighborhood streets during large events. But she did not agree with neighbors who want a limit on the number of large events that could be held at the arena.
The arena project has pushed through numerous delays over a time line that goes back several years. Rising costs, a controversial financing plan that went all the way to the state Legislature and neighborhood concerns about traffic have all posed hurdles.
One more possible delay remains. The hearings officer’s decision can be appealed to the city planning commission, which would delay the project another month.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
the price is right
The full text of Knight’s donation agreement:
University of Oregon Foundation
Pledge Agreement
University of Oregon Athletic Department Legacy Funds
Philip H. Knight and Penelope Knight (the “Donors”) or hereby the Knight Foundation irrevocably pledge (the “Pledge”) to the University of Oregon Foundation (the “Foundation”) for the University of Oregon Athletic Department Legacy Fund (the “Legacy Fund”) the sum of $100 million dollars (the “Pledge Amount”) payable in full on or about December 31, 2010. Installments of the Pledge Amount shall be due as follows:
$20 million on or before January 31, 2009
$20 million on or before December 31, 2009
$20 million on or before December 31, 2010
$20 million on or before January 31, 2011
$20 million on or before December 31, 2012
Each installment payment due pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid in cash or by transfer to the Foundation of marketable securities, the value of which shall be determined as of the effective date of the transfer.
Donors acknowledge that the Foundation and the University of Oregon are relying on the Donors’ Pledge to the Legacy Fund, together with the pledges of others, to enable the Foundation and the University of Oregon to make various legally binding financial commitments that they would not otherwise be able or willing to incur. However, the Donors’ obligations under this Agreement shall be contingent on the approval of the State of Oregon on or before June 1, 2008 for the issuance by the State of XI F (1) bonds to fund the cost of design and construction of a new basketball arena for the University of Oregon.
The Legacy Fund will be for the sole benefit of the University of Oregon Athletic Department and distribution of principal, income and net appreciation will be made from time to time as directed by the Director of Athletics. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Pledge Amount shall not under any circumstances be used to directly pay any costs of planning, design or construction of a new basketball arena.
The Foundation’s standard assessment policy for new gifts shall not be applicable to the proceeds of the Pledge. However, the Legacy Fund will be subject to other administrative fees authorized by Foundation policy.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement. This agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives and successors. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon.
(The agreement is signed Jan. 2, 2008, by Philip and Penelope Knight and Allan Price, UO vice president for advancement.)
University of Oregon Foundation
Pledge Agreement
University of Oregon Athletic Department Legacy Funds
Philip H. Knight and Penelope Knight (the “Donors”) or hereby the Knight Foundation irrevocably pledge (the “Pledge”) to the University of Oregon Foundation (the “Foundation”) for the University of Oregon Athletic Department Legacy Fund (the “Legacy Fund”) the sum of $100 million dollars (the “Pledge Amount”) payable in full on or about December 31, 2010. Installments of the Pledge Amount shall be due as follows:
$20 million on or before January 31, 2009
$20 million on or before December 31, 2009
$20 million on or before December 31, 2010
$20 million on or before January 31, 2011
$20 million on or before December 31, 2012
Each installment payment due pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid in cash or by transfer to the Foundation of marketable securities, the value of which shall be determined as of the effective date of the transfer.
Donors acknowledge that the Foundation and the University of Oregon are relying on the Donors’ Pledge to the Legacy Fund, together with the pledges of others, to enable the Foundation and the University of Oregon to make various legally binding financial commitments that they would not otherwise be able or willing to incur. However, the Donors’ obligations under this Agreement shall be contingent on the approval of the State of Oregon on or before June 1, 2008 for the issuance by the State of XI F (1) bonds to fund the cost of design and construction of a new basketball arena for the University of Oregon.
The Legacy Fund will be for the sole benefit of the University of Oregon Athletic Department and distribution of principal, income and net appreciation will be made from time to time as directed by the Director of Athletics. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Pledge Amount shall not under any circumstances be used to directly pay any costs of planning, design or construction of a new basketball arena.
The Foundation’s standard assessment policy for new gifts shall not be applicable to the proceeds of the Pledge. However, the Legacy Fund will be subject to other administrative fees authorized by Foundation policy.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement. This agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives and successors. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon.
(The agreement is signed Jan. 2, 2008, by Philip and Penelope Knight and Allan Price, UO vice president for advancement.)
bye, cronemayer
Allan Price, vice president for university advancement at the University of Oregon and a sycophantic crony of President Dave Frohnmayer, is leaving that role at the end of the year to become senior vice president for advancement at Oregon Health and Science University and president of the OHSU Foundation.
Price joined the University of Oregon in 2001. He has been responsible for development, public and government affairs and brokered the December, 2007 agreement with Phil and Penny Knight designed to bully the February, 2008 emergency session of the Oregon Legislature into approving $200 million worth of bonds to build new digs for a-holes like Pat and Stephanie Kilkenny to sit on their rumps watching n-words like Ernie Kent and l-words like Bev Smith bounce dead cows.
Greg Rikhoff, a transgendered bathroom activist who was Allan's nearest and dearest colleague started to explain just how deeply he would miss his colleague. "I gotta tell you folks, the price is right, the price is so, so, ri..." At this point, Mr. Rikhoff started sobbing.
Price joined the University of Oregon in 2001. He has been responsible for development, public and government affairs and brokered the December, 2007 agreement with Phil and Penny Knight designed to bully the February, 2008 emergency session of the Oregon Legislature into approving $200 million worth of bonds to build new digs for a-holes like Pat and Stephanie Kilkenny to sit on their rumps watching n-words like Ernie Kent and l-words like Bev Smith bounce dead cows.
Greg Rikhoff, a transgendered bathroom activist who was Allan's nearest and dearest colleague started to explain just how deeply he would miss his colleague. "I gotta tell you folks, the price is right, the price is so, so, ri..." At this point, Mr. Rikhoff started sobbing.
auditor update
November 6, 2008
To: Jon Ruiz, Eugene City Manager
Cc: Glenn Klein, City Attorney
Pete Kerns, AIC Eugene Police Chief
Dawn Reynolds, AIC Eugene Police Auditor
F. Douglass Harcleroad, Lane County District Attorney
From: Deborah Frisch
Re: Public records request re: documents referenced in 10.15.08 memo to city council
Dear Mr. Ruiz,
On page 3 of your October 15, 2008 memo to the Eugene City Council, you wrote “The Police Chief will not unilaterally determine whether or not information is withheld from the Auditor. If the Chief believes he needs to delay the release of information to the Auditor (for example, because state or federal law prohibits its release), he will immediately notify the Auditor, the City Attorney and me. The City Attorney will opine on whether federal or state law prevent its release.”
On page 2 of your October 15, 2008 memo to AIC Chief Kerns, you wrote “During the summer, a situation arose where the Chief was informed by the District Attorney’s office that the Chief should not disclose certain information to the Auditor.” The case you refer to appears in AIC Auditor Reynolds’ November 10, 2008 memo to the City Council. Case 08-A122 was initiated on May 27, 2008.
I was very surprised that the two October 15, 2008 briefs by Glenn Klein/Jerome Lidz and Glenn Klein/Mark Amberg did not address the issue of whether the City Attorney sustained the allegation made by former EPD Chief Lehner and LCDA Harcleroad that Mr. Lehner would have violated a state or Federal law if he had complied with Eugene City Code and provided former Police Auditor Beamud with a copy of IA 08-122.
On page 6 of the 7 page memo from Klein & Lidz to Reynolds & Lehner, it states “We believe that situations where information cannot lawfully be shared with the auditor’s office will be very rare.”
It is an open question whether soon-to-be-former Lane County District Attorney Harcleroad was correct when he informed former EPD Chief Lehner that compliance with Eugene City Code regarding IA 08-122 would conflict with state or Federal laws. On October 15, 2008 you announced that you would ask the City Attorney to opine in matters like IA 08-122.
1.Can you provide me with any written documentation that as promised in your October 15, 2008 memo you have asked the City Attorney to opine on the validity of the Lehner/Harcleroad allegation that compliance with Eugene City Code re: IA 08-122 would have caused Mr. Lehner to violated Oregon Revised Statutes or the United States Constitution?
2. Did Mr. Harcleroad provide his advice to Mr. Lehner in writing? If so, can you provide me with a copy. If not, can you summarize the gist of the advice, stating, for example, the particular subsection of the Oregon Revised Statutes or the United States Constitition that Mr. Lehner would have violated had he complied with the Eugene City Code re: IA 08-122?
3. Can you give me an estimate when the City Attorney will opine re: IA 08-122, as per your October 15, 2008 memo?
4. If Mr. Lehner broke the law, it would behoove you to inform the City Manager in Elk Grove, CA and also warn AIC Kerns not to emulate his predecessor with regard to this particular matter. Thus, I assume Mr. Kerns and Ms. Reynolds are as eager as I am to read the brief you said you were going to request on October 15, 2008. Can you give me any correspondence from Mr. Kerns or Ms. Reynolds asking you to ask the City Attorney to opine on this important matter?
To: Jon Ruiz, Eugene City Manager
Cc: Glenn Klein, City Attorney
Pete Kerns, AIC Eugene Police Chief
Dawn Reynolds, AIC Eugene Police Auditor
F. Douglass Harcleroad, Lane County District Attorney
From: Deborah Frisch
Re: Public records request re: documents referenced in 10.15.08 memo to city council
Dear Mr. Ruiz,
On page 3 of your October 15, 2008 memo to the Eugene City Council, you wrote “The Police Chief will not unilaterally determine whether or not information is withheld from the Auditor. If the Chief believes he needs to delay the release of information to the Auditor (for example, because state or federal law prohibits its release), he will immediately notify the Auditor, the City Attorney and me. The City Attorney will opine on whether federal or state law prevent its release.”
On page 2 of your October 15, 2008 memo to AIC Chief Kerns, you wrote “During the summer, a situation arose where the Chief was informed by the District Attorney’s office that the Chief should not disclose certain information to the Auditor.” The case you refer to appears in AIC Auditor Reynolds’ November 10, 2008 memo to the City Council. Case 08-A122 was initiated on May 27, 2008.
I was very surprised that the two October 15, 2008 briefs by Glenn Klein/Jerome Lidz and Glenn Klein/Mark Amberg did not address the issue of whether the City Attorney sustained the allegation made by former EPD Chief Lehner and LCDA Harcleroad that Mr. Lehner would have violated a state or Federal law if he had complied with Eugene City Code and provided former Police Auditor Beamud with a copy of IA 08-122.
On page 6 of the 7 page memo from Klein & Lidz to Reynolds & Lehner, it states “We believe that situations where information cannot lawfully be shared with the auditor’s office will be very rare.”
It is an open question whether soon-to-be-former Lane County District Attorney Harcleroad was correct when he informed former EPD Chief Lehner that compliance with Eugene City Code regarding IA 08-122 would conflict with state or Federal laws. On October 15, 2008 you announced that you would ask the City Attorney to opine in matters like IA 08-122.
1.Can you provide me with any written documentation that as promised in your October 15, 2008 memo you have asked the City Attorney to opine on the validity of the Lehner/Harcleroad allegation that compliance with Eugene City Code re: IA 08-122 would have caused Mr. Lehner to violated Oregon Revised Statutes or the United States Constitution?
2. Did Mr. Harcleroad provide his advice to Mr. Lehner in writing? If so, can you provide me with a copy. If not, can you summarize the gist of the advice, stating, for example, the particular subsection of the Oregon Revised Statutes or the United States Constitition that Mr. Lehner would have violated had he complied with the Eugene City Code re: IA 08-122?
3. Can you give me an estimate when the City Attorney will opine re: IA 08-122, as per your October 15, 2008 memo?
4. If Mr. Lehner broke the law, it would behoove you to inform the City Manager in Elk Grove, CA and also warn AIC Kerns not to emulate his predecessor with regard to this particular matter. Thus, I assume Mr. Kerns and Ms. Reynolds are as eager as I am to read the brief you said you were going to request on October 15, 2008. Can you give me any correspondence from Mr. Kerns or Ms. Reynolds asking you to ask the City Attorney to opine on this important matter?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
treegate
To: Steve Ochs
Item 2c(i) in the October 16, 2008 Arena Mitigation Agreement cosigned by City Attorney Glenn Klein of Harrang, Long, Gary & Rudnick, University of Oregon General Counsel Melinda Grier and Fairmount Neighbors Association Attorney Meg Kieran of Gartland, Nelson, McCleery, Wade & Walloch states “Other than operational elements, the elements of the TDM [Transportation Demand Management] Plan must be completed by University before City will issue a post-construction occupancy permit for the Arena. The major elements that must be completed include but are not limited to the following:
c. University will design and construct through the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) process the following improvements to streets:
i) Franklin at Agate: Construct a right-turn lane from eastbound Franklin Blvd. to southbound Agate St. to improve capacity and safety by providing an additional lane curbside, within the signal, requiring relocation of a pole, mast arm and detector loops. Extend the left turn lane on Franklin for Riverfront Parkway as shown on the diagram in Exhibit 2.
---
As you acknowledge on page 17 of CU 08-4, the extension of the left turn lane requires the removal of a historic tree that definitely requires a permit (as per Eugene City Code 6.310) and might require a public vote (as per Section 52 of the City Charter.)
1. Can you leave me a copy of exhibit 2 of the Arena Mitigation Agreement (Diagram for the Franklin at Agate intersection) at the front desk?
2. Has the UO begun the process of applying for a permit to remove one historic street tree and destroy the root system of ("technically fell") another at Franklin and Agate [p. 17 CU 08-4]? If not, do you have any idea when that procedure (described in ECC 6.310) upon which both the TDM Plan and the Arena Mitigation Agreement depend will be initiated?
3. You allege that the tree in question is exempt from Section 52 because it conforms to Subsection 5, granting exemptions "if the project is designed to improve only an intersection." A September 11, 2008 memo from Mr. Klein cites a May 13, 1988 memo from Timothy Sercombe and agrees with you. However:
a. the project is not intended to improve the intersection but rather is intended to partially mitigate adverse effects on traffic flow before and after events at the arena.
b. the decision about whether or not the tree at Franklin and Agate satisfies the exemption of Subsection 5 of Eugene City Charter Section 52 will be made by Mark Snyder, the City's Urban Forester in the process of evaluating the Eugene City Code 6.310 mandated Tree-felling permit. Wouldn't it make more sense for Mr. Snyder, who has experience in making this kind of decision and the authority to make this particular one to make this evaluation instead of Mr. Klein?
Item 2c(i) in the October 16, 2008 Arena Mitigation Agreement cosigned by City Attorney Glenn Klein of Harrang, Long, Gary & Rudnick, University of Oregon General Counsel Melinda Grier and Fairmount Neighbors Association Attorney Meg Kieran of Gartland, Nelson, McCleery, Wade & Walloch states “Other than operational elements, the elements of the TDM [Transportation Demand Management] Plan must be completed by University before City will issue a post-construction occupancy permit for the Arena. The major elements that must be completed include but are not limited to the following:
c. University will design and construct through the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) process the following improvements to streets:
i) Franklin at Agate: Construct a right-turn lane from eastbound Franklin Blvd. to southbound Agate St. to improve capacity and safety by providing an additional lane curbside, within the signal, requiring relocation of a pole, mast arm and detector loops. Extend the left turn lane on Franklin for Riverfront Parkway as shown on the diagram in Exhibit 2.
---
As you acknowledge on page 17 of CU 08-4, the extension of the left turn lane requires the removal of a historic tree that definitely requires a permit (as per Eugene City Code 6.310) and might require a public vote (as per Section 52 of the City Charter.)
1. Can you leave me a copy of exhibit 2 of the Arena Mitigation Agreement (Diagram for the Franklin at Agate intersection) at the front desk?
2. Has the UO begun the process of applying for a permit to remove one historic street tree and destroy the root system of ("technically fell") another at Franklin and Agate [p. 17 CU 08-4]? If not, do you have any idea when that procedure (described in ECC 6.310) upon which both the TDM Plan and the Arena Mitigation Agreement depend will be initiated?
3. You allege that the tree in question is exempt from Section 52 because it conforms to Subsection 5, granting exemptions "if the project is designed to improve only an intersection." A September 11, 2008 memo from Mr. Klein cites a May 13, 1988 memo from Timothy Sercombe and agrees with you. However:
a. the project is not intended to improve the intersection but rather is intended to partially mitigate adverse effects on traffic flow before and after events at the arena.
b. the decision about whether or not the tree at Franklin and Agate satisfies the exemption of Subsection 5 of Eugene City Charter Section 52 will be made by Mark Snyder, the City's Urban Forester in the process of evaluating the Eugene City Code 6.310 mandated Tree-felling permit. Wouldn't it make more sense for Mr. Snyder, who has experience in making this kind of decision and the authority to make this particular one to make this evaluation instead of Mr. Klein?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
alex "35.73182%" gardner
On May 20, 2008 there were 194, 720 registered voters in Lane County.
124, 443 (according to Lane County records) or 124, 459 (according to State of Oregon records, p. 6) of those registered voters exercised their right to participate in the primary election.
On May 20, 2008, 69, 577 of the 194, 720 registered voters in Lane County endorsed Senior Deputy District Attorney Alex Gardner to replace F. Douglass Harcleroad, who was retiring after only 25 years of public service. Because Mr. Gardner ran an extensive campaign and ran unopposed and managed to muster 35.73182% of the vote, his name does not even appear on the November ballot.
Got democracy?
YES ON 56! NO ON 57 and 61!
124, 443 (according to Lane County records) or 124, 459 (according to State of Oregon records, p. 6) of those registered voters exercised their right to participate in the primary election.
On May 20, 2008, 69, 577 of the 194, 720 registered voters in Lane County endorsed Senior Deputy District Attorney Alex Gardner to replace F. Douglass Harcleroad, who was retiring after only 25 years of public service. Because Mr. Gardner ran an extensive campaign and ran unopposed and managed to muster 35.73182% of the vote, his name does not even appear on the November ballot.
Got democracy?
YES ON 56! NO ON 57 and 61!
james spader and captain jerk
I awoke in a reflective mood this morning and it occurred to me that I have been unnecessarily abusive to many of you. It is 7:30 a.m. on November 4, 2008, the day when the wounds of November 2, 2004, September 11, 2001 and maybe even January 1, 0000 (December 31, -0001?) will heal. Yet I have not shared my national electoral preferences. I’m sorry. My bad.
The choice between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden is easy.
1. Arizona/Alaska trumps Illinois/Delaware.
2. Two t*ts trumps zero t*ts.
3. McCain, Obama and Biden all voted for the United States government’s $700 billion plus transfer of wealth from proletariats to capitalists – the dyslexic robin hood bill (that had a big chunk of pork for lame county!) Maybe Palin would have voted against it.
4. Last night on Boston Legal, Alan Shore and Denny Crane debated Obama vs. McCain. James Spader got more air time and better arguments than William Shatner, but the Obama-biased debate ended in a paintball fight, creating the illusion of being equally mocking to both sides, when it fact, it was absurdly biased toward Obama. The last bit, with Spader (who is hard at work on a film called “sex, lies and pizza hut”) chomping on a fat stogie and Captain Kirk slurping Maker’s Mark has Shatner/Crane confiding to Spader/Shore that he voted for Obama after all! Election eve propaganda from your friends at ABC. It’s mind-boggling to me that Spader and Shatner participated in this putrid partisan propaganda. Spader should be spayed and Shatner should be…oh, never mind.
Monday, November 3, 2008
shootout on east amazon
kval news:
andrea damewood: inbredgister guard: Eugene police surrounded a south Eugene home Sunday and shot and injured a man wanted in connection with a shooting Saturday night that left one victim dead and another seriously injured.
The suspect, 32-year-old Juan Carlos Aleman of Eugene, allegedly brandished two large knives and refused police orders to drop his weapons during the noon standoff, interim police Chief Pete Kerns said. Aleman was shot with rounds from a beanbag gun, a rifle and a Taser before police were able to bring him under control, Kerns said. A waiting ambulance transported Aleman to Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend, where he was listed in critical condition Sunday night.
Police had been searching for Aleman following a shooting at a house in the 2700 block of Morse Street in the Bethel area at 10:23 p.m. Saturday, in which Aleman allegedly fled the scene in a white Ford Explorer. One man was killed and another man was taken to RiverBend, where he is expected to survive his injuries, police said.
After an overnight search, a police SWAT team surrounded a duplex at the corner of East Amazon and Potter Street where Aleman was first spotted by a detective, Kerns said.
During the standoff, two officers, one holding a rifle and the other a 40 mm beanbag rifle, made individual decisions to fire upon Aleman when he came as close as 15 feet to police without dropping his knives, Kerns said. Though shot, Aleman still did not drop the knives, and a third officer used a Taser to bring him under control, he said.
Aleman’s female partner and three children in the home at the time were unharmed and left the house after the standoff. No police officers or neighbors were harmed.
The identities of Saturday’s shooting victims are being withheld pending notification of next of kin, some of whom live in Mexico, police said. Police said Aleman and the two men were all attending the same party and were acquainted, but no motive for the shooting has been established yet.
Sunday’s standoff follows a series of police confrontations with armed suspects in the last week. A man described as suicidal was shot and killed by Springfield police Thursday after he darted out of his front door and dove to the ground while pointing a loaded assault rifle at several officers. The Lane County Sheriff’s Office also cordoned off the home of a murder suspect near Florence on Friday night before he was discovered dead in his home of an apparent suicide.
After interviewing witnesses to the shooting on Morse Street, police had “a handful” of possible addresses for Aleman, Kerns said.
By early Sunday morning, police had placed Aleman’s whereabouts at the duplex in the 3900 block of East Amazon Drive, he said. Police began setting up a covert perimeter around the duplex and blocked traffic along East Amazon Drive from 39th Avenue to Potter Street, Kerns said.
Police were unable to reach the family living in the other half of the duplex, so at noon officers went to the door of that unit to try to evacuate the family, he said. As officers went to the neighbor’s home, Aleman came out of the house and looked over a fence in his backyard, Kerns said. Officers commanded Aleman to come out, but he instead shook his head and went back inside, Kerns said.
Police then pulled a SWAT armored vehicle into the driveway, where they used loudspeakers to order Aleman out once again in both English and Spanish. At 12:01 p.m., Aleman opened his garage door and exited, brandishing the knives in each hand and refusing to drop them, so police opened fire, Kerns said.
“He opened the garage door and presented a significant threat to officers,” Kerns said, adding that Aleman may have been as close as 15 feet to officers when they fired the first rounds with the rifle and beanbag weapon.
The Lane County Interagency Deadly Force Investigation Team and district attorney will investigate the officer-involved shooting to determine if the officers’ use of force in the shooting was justified, Kerns said.
Three officers, whose identities were not given on Sunday, were placed on paid administrative leave until an investigation can be completed, police spokeswoman Melinda Kletzok said.
As of Sunday night, police hadn’t located the gun used in Saturday’s shooting, but investigators were still working to secure search warrants for the house, Kletzok said.
The Ford Explorer that Aleman was believed to have been driving also has not been found.
Police described it as having a distinctive wrap-around chrome tube-style front grill, and a loud exhaust system.
East Amazon Drive was closed from 39th Avenue to Potter Street for a number of hours Sunday night while police conducted their investigation.
The family in the adjoining duplex was safely evacuated, police said.
Kerns said there were no issues in translating police orders to Aleman, thanks to the use of bilingual officers.
“The remarkable thing is how quickly our patrol officers, detectives and SWAT team were able to apprehend this very dangerous man,” Kerns said.
andrea damewood: inbredgister guard: Eugene police surrounded a south Eugene home Sunday and shot and injured a man wanted in connection with a shooting Saturday night that left one victim dead and another seriously injured.
The suspect, 32-year-old Juan Carlos Aleman of Eugene, allegedly brandished two large knives and refused police orders to drop his weapons during the noon standoff, interim police Chief Pete Kerns said. Aleman was shot with rounds from a beanbag gun, a rifle and a Taser before police were able to bring him under control, Kerns said. A waiting ambulance transported Aleman to Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend, where he was listed in critical condition Sunday night.
Police had been searching for Aleman following a shooting at a house in the 2700 block of Morse Street in the Bethel area at 10:23 p.m. Saturday, in which Aleman allegedly fled the scene in a white Ford Explorer. One man was killed and another man was taken to RiverBend, where he is expected to survive his injuries, police said.
After an overnight search, a police SWAT team surrounded a duplex at the corner of East Amazon and Potter Street where Aleman was first spotted by a detective, Kerns said.
During the standoff, two officers, one holding a rifle and the other a 40 mm beanbag rifle, made individual decisions to fire upon Aleman when he came as close as 15 feet to police without dropping his knives, Kerns said. Though shot, Aleman still did not drop the knives, and a third officer used a Taser to bring him under control, he said.
Aleman’s female partner and three children in the home at the time were unharmed and left the house after the standoff. No police officers or neighbors were harmed.
The identities of Saturday’s shooting victims are being withheld pending notification of next of kin, some of whom live in Mexico, police said. Police said Aleman and the two men were all attending the same party and were acquainted, but no motive for the shooting has been established yet.
Sunday’s standoff follows a series of police confrontations with armed suspects in the last week. A man described as suicidal was shot and killed by Springfield police Thursday after he darted out of his front door and dove to the ground while pointing a loaded assault rifle at several officers. The Lane County Sheriff’s Office also cordoned off the home of a murder suspect near Florence on Friday night before he was discovered dead in his home of an apparent suicide.
After interviewing witnesses to the shooting on Morse Street, police had “a handful” of possible addresses for Aleman, Kerns said.
By early Sunday morning, police had placed Aleman’s whereabouts at the duplex in the 3900 block of East Amazon Drive, he said. Police began setting up a covert perimeter around the duplex and blocked traffic along East Amazon Drive from 39th Avenue to Potter Street, Kerns said.
Police were unable to reach the family living in the other half of the duplex, so at noon officers went to the door of that unit to try to evacuate the family, he said. As officers went to the neighbor’s home, Aleman came out of the house and looked over a fence in his backyard, Kerns said. Officers commanded Aleman to come out, but he instead shook his head and went back inside, Kerns said.
Police then pulled a SWAT armored vehicle into the driveway, where they used loudspeakers to order Aleman out once again in both English and Spanish. At 12:01 p.m., Aleman opened his garage door and exited, brandishing the knives in each hand and refusing to drop them, so police opened fire, Kerns said.
“He opened the garage door and presented a significant threat to officers,” Kerns said, adding that Aleman may have been as close as 15 feet to officers when they fired the first rounds with the rifle and beanbag weapon.
The Lane County Interagency Deadly Force Investigation Team and district attorney will investigate the officer-involved shooting to determine if the officers’ use of force in the shooting was justified, Kerns said.
Three officers, whose identities were not given on Sunday, were placed on paid administrative leave until an investigation can be completed, police spokeswoman Melinda Kletzok said.
As of Sunday night, police hadn’t located the gun used in Saturday’s shooting, but investigators were still working to secure search warrants for the house, Kletzok said.
The Ford Explorer that Aleman was believed to have been driving also has not been found.
Police described it as having a distinctive wrap-around chrome tube-style front grill, and a loud exhaust system.
East Amazon Drive was closed from 39th Avenue to Potter Street for a number of hours Sunday night while police conducted their investigation.
The family in the adjoining duplex was safely evacuated, police said.
Kerns said there were no issues in translating police orders to Aleman, thanks to the use of bilingual officers.
“The remarkable thing is how quickly our patrol officers, detectives and SWAT team were able to apprehend this very dangerous man,” Kerns said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
