2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Ah ha...Interesting. Now some things make more sense. I just checked out your page for the first time and saw the multitude of Kari's posts on your site. He must spend a lot of time there. I was surprised by how much might be properly considered shrill and angry towards you. No wonder his comments here also seem a little out of focus and colored by emotion.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

That's a very good point. Any time our public servants kick out an American citizen from a meeting related to spending our tax dollars, it makes me wonder what they have to hide. They work for us. Not the other way 'round.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Hi Kari, and thanks for helping us keep the topic of Accountability and Open Government in the forefront. With your position as one of our many internet "bloggers," you raise as an excellent example of today's topic about journalistic standards.

Yes, we have indeed seen your Google List and heard you repeatedly tell us that exec sessions are the ones where they discuss personnel issues/contracts. Don't worry, we hear you... :)

But it's factually untrue to suggest that personnel and contracts are somehow "not the rest of that usual stuff" in public service. Usual stuff? Outside of imminent national security, all public service is the "usual stuff" and open to the public. All of it. We paid for it.

Because personnel issues? Contracts? You do realize those are exactly the areas where our public servants spend our money, yes?

This is the usual stuff - and this area, Kari, is exactly where we need openness and accountability in these meetings.

Otherwise, we'll continue to get things like no-bid Haliburton contracts which financially impact the nation. (albeit at a smaller level in Lake Oswego :) Or we'll continue to get exec meetings like VP Cheney's Energy Task Force with Enron and others which tacitly led to retirees losing their entire savings. I bet they'd rather have had a few citizens reporting out from those meetings now, eh?

So I'd say let's try to shift from your more myopic view to see the the larger topic folks are discussing here. That which is the real-world practice of having any closed meetings at all outside of national security interests.

And yes, this includes meetings about private contracts. If a private business cannot stand up to public scrutiny - to include what services they'll provide the public and what they'll charge to our tax dollars - then we'll have to go elsewhere. In this economy, don't worry. We'll have plenty of free-market bidders.

Though it's unfortunate you didn't identify that you run a private business, Mandate Media, which serves to clients that include local and state political campaigns and candidates.

It's not that someone could say Kari works for Judie and Lake Oswego currently. But in the interest of openness, you'd have seemed credible to identify the nature of the politicians who you serve so no one would now be questioning your agenda of supporting their ability to hold closed meetings on spending our money.

Don't get me wrong - I totally support your freedom to publicize your position on having closed-door meetings on areas where our tax dollars are spent.

I just wonder what your Progressive clients will think about it...

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Interesting points about the changing face of media creation/consumption related to how our generations age and are replaced. I enjoyed reading your take.

But I'd respectfully ask that you don't discourage open discussion on this page. No one needs to limit their thinking or simple down their answer to one single aspect of the canned, pre-programmed question.

To answer today's question requires an aware citizenry that looks at the entire picture.

The fact that the topic of an Open and Accountable Government with regards to how they serve constituents - and spend our hard-earned tax dollars - has taken over this page is because it stands at the very root of our question.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

This topic is laughable. Well, except for the fact that OPB is treating it like a legitimate discussion which makes it chilling.

Reporter, Blogger, Private Citizen... In this specific case, the definition is moot. All three are allowed to attend meetings by our government.

Who is our government? Not an "executive board meeting" at a private company. Lake Oswego's governing body is a group of public servants lucky enough to be paid - by us - to serve our local needs.

And how do they get paid? Oh yeah. With our tax dollars. They work for us. Media, blogger, private citizens? Doesn't matter. They don't get to have anything other than meetings open to our scrutiny because we paid for them.

So unless Judie is meeting with the Pentagon to plan a military operation classified in the name of national security (and you aren't over there in Lake Oswego are you, Judie?), she gets no closed meetings. Ever.

All of her meetings are open to any member of the public to review how our money is being spent.

And so reporters, bloggers, and private citizens can attend and report their take on the spending of our money in any media: newspaper, private blog, etc.

Otherwise, it looks like Judie's got something to hide and fears openness before the very constituents who pay her salary to work for them. And that ain't American. That's some crazy governmental control like we read about in China...

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context