Press Release – 5/9/12 (updated 5/12/12)

UPDATE: Multnomah County Chapter Greens and 19thofJune Chapter Greens make endorsements in Mayor Race for Smith and Brady, respectively

Coinciding with the Portland Greens dropping their endorsements of Smith and Brady, two overlapping area chapters decided to re-endorse their particularly chosen candidates. The 19thof June Chapter Pacific Greens as a chapter decided to back Eileen Brady, while the Multnomah County Chapter Pacific Greens decided to back Jefferson Smith. Press contacts are Woody Broadnax at (971) 998-5034 and T. Oliver at (971) 279-4925, respectively.

Neither chapter was particularly satisfied with other candidates, though the Multnomah County Chapter specifically mentioned some support for Cameron Whitten and Tre Arrow, and the 19thof June Chapter also expressed support for Cameron Whitten.

The Multnomah County Chapter expressed support for Smith based around his opposition to the CRC boondoggle and support of Occupy Portland. They noted the following.

"In the April 27th 2012 edition of Street Roots publication, Smith states, 'Right now we have a City that works for some of us, but not all of us. Making Portland the city that works for everyone, in every neighborhood, regardless of income, color or geography, is my No. 1 priority. I'll prioritize front-line services, not million dollar bridge boondoggles or tax breaks for corporations and developers that we can not afford.'

"Smith comments during the OPB debate regarding Occupy Portland should also be noted. Smith would not have cleared the park after 'one week' and urges people to focus on why the activist were in the streets and parks in Portland and across the country. We are there to exercise the constitutional rights of freedoms of speech and to peacefully assemble."

The 19thof June Chapter was particularly concerned with Police Accountability issues and had no faith in Smith's ability to effectively work for the minority community on this highly critical issue given his endorsement of by the Portland Police Association and his public and private statements to gain that endorsement. In contrast, Brady has been an outspoken supporter of full transparency of police investigations following complaints of the improper use of force, and considers this a major issue that will require dedicated action from the mayor's office, direct oversight of the Police Bureau, and a return to community policing.

The Portland Greens respect the diversity of the Pacific Green Chapters that exist in the state, including in overlapping areas, and respect their decisions to continue endorsing particular candidates. A diversity of tactics and chapters demonstrates that the Pacific Greens believe in the full empowerment of diversity in the community and see these actions as grassroots democracy demonstrated within the Pacific Green Party, something which all chapters strongly support.

Original release follows.

Portland Green Party drops endorsement for Jefferson Smith, Eileen Brady.

Yesterday, the Portland Green Party using consensus dropped their support for local mayoral candidates Eileen Brady and Jefferson Smith, leaving support only for their original front-runner, Cameron Whitten. Participating members felt that both major candidates failed to live up to the four pillars of the Portland Greens: conservation, social justice, grassroots democracy, and peace and nonviolence.

The chief environmental concern with both candidates is that they are both pro-Columbia River Crossing -– an unnecessary, wasteful, and corrupt project that is based on false projections of future traffic and false projections of future fuel prices – and potentially costing us $10 billion. This is all the more offensive in light of other unfunded mandates, such as Portland's 2007 Peak Oil Task Force report (whose recommendations were approved in Resolution 36488). Aside from its strong recommendations on things like local food production and moving employment to the neighborhood level, the report also found that “even the most optimistic projections [for Peak Oil] offer little time to adapt,” and warned against “vast public and private infrastructure built in anticipation of inexpensive fossil fuels for decades to come,” (page 8). The Task Force declared that the city should “Design infrastructure to promote transportation options and facilitate efficient movement of freight, and prevent infrastructure investments that would not be prudent given fuel shortages and higher prices,” (page 38, emphasis added).

Despite occasional pandering, both Brady and Smith ultimately support the project. Brady sometimes speaks of a “slimmed down” project, while Smith speaks vaguely of a “Plan B”. Neither candidate is willing to speak out unequivocally against the project. We find this unacceptable. The Portland Greens believe that the only viable option is a retrofitted bridge funded by congestion tolling. We do not agree that installing a light-rail requires the complete overhaul of our interstate highway system. We do not agree that developers get to decide where we spend our money, and to increase car traffic when DEQ reports that Portland already has levels of Benzene (much of it released from diesel fuel) that are 40 times higher than safe levels. It is time to get cars off the road – and confront the developers who rationalize us further into an unlivable future.

Vague language gets us nowhere. Vacillating gets us nowhere. We have listened to both candidates and their supporters tie themselves in knots explaining how they might be secretly against the CRC. This is not enough. “When the logic of history hungers for bread, and we hand out a stone, we are at pains to describe how much the stone resembles bread.”

Participating members had other strong concerns with the candidates individually. These are listed below.

Eileen Brady

Brady has insisted on brandishing her status as the second choice candidate of the Portland Greens. This is mis-leading. Cameron Whitten earned our unanimous support – both Eileen and Jefferson were distant seconds – and only separated by 1 vote. Brady's continual use of the Green Party name was especially troubling to members who reached out to her to try and strengthen her environmental platform. It was disappointing to us that she would choose to align herself in name only, rather than working with us to craft stronger environmental policies.

It is an especially troubling sign when a former high-level official from EcoTrust has trouble opposing coal exports, and chooses instead to suggest “mitigation”. Climate change is already here, and the past few years have proven that it is happening much faster than anyone expected. No one is going to re-freeze the arctic for us, or de-acidify the oceans, or replant our old-growth forests. If you want to mitigate coal, you have to solve the real problem. Leave it in the ground. Stop blowing up mountains. Stop polluting our water and our air. And don't give a pass to people that do – close our roads to them, close our rail-lines to them, and close our rivers to them. Show them our climate change legislation, and tell them they are part of the problem.

The utter failure to do any of these things was a major factor that lead to our decision to withdraw support from Brady. Our biggest concern, however, was with Brady's total disregard for our First Amendment rights. Eileen is the only candidate who said she would have cleared the Occupy Portland camps in the first week. When asked about the eviction of the camps, Brady responded “we could see the best of Portland that day”.

Later, when asked by Occupy Portland activists if she would arrest them for blocking coal trains, Eileen said “Yes! And isn't that the point?” A spokesperson for Eileen has since argued that she adopts the “Thoreau theory” of civil disobedience. Here is Thoreau, speaking for himself:“"Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them [unjust laws]... But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil... Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?" In this and many other passsages, Thoreau makes it very clear that the goal of civil disobedience is to win alliances from everyone – including state officials (in his narrative, the tax collector). Thoreau would not support Gandhi getting shot. Neither would Gandhi. And no one in their right mind thinks that all protestors are some cult of masochists and martyrs.

This incoherent position on peace and nonviolence also undercuts Eileen's brand of environmentalism, which is, to put it lightly, not especially informed on issues of social justice. For the Portland Green Party, this is not acceptable. We take strong exception to Brady's equivocations on coal exports, and find it equally unacceptable that she does not respect the Constitutional right to free speech and assembly. As long as she maintains these positions, we cannot support her candidacy.

Jefferson Smith

There are three major concerns we have with Jefferson Smith. The first and most paramount is that he does not support Portland's independent Charter Review Commission, a citizen-run process that has the power to refer laws directly to the people of Portland. Our previous Mayor Tom Potter created the Commission in 2007 to address the lack of meaningful citizen participation in city government. Mayor Sam Adams, however, chose to dissolve the commission in February of this year – immediately after it started making recommendations to stop police brutality. Smith, a self-proclaimed champion of grassroots democracy, says he “has questions” about the commission and its process. We think a Harvard-trained lawyer shouldn't have trouble understanding a three-page city resolution (Res. 36477), or the three page explanatory statement that accompanied it in Measure 26-89 during the Special Election of May 2007 – an election that saw 75,000 people vote in favor of the Commission, and approve it by an overwhelming 75% majority. This is what democracy looks like. If Smith still has questions, we think he would do well to start asking them.

Two related issues have us worried about Smith, and particularly his grassroots credibility. The first is that he does not support voting method reform, such as Ranked Choice Voting (also under consideration by the Charter Review Commission before it got axed), or even District Elections. Both would dramatically reduce the cost of running for office, thus reducing the influence of money in local politics and encouraging more grassroots organizers to run for office. It is baffling that such a vocal advocate for publicly financed elections would oppose such basic common-sense reforms.

Our last major concern with Smith is his alignment with the Portland Police Bureau. Smith is the only candidate endorsed by the police union, and also, coincidentally, the only candidate who says he wants a policy of non-transparency on Grand Jury hearings that investigate the police. Smith says he would only allow transparency on a case-by-case basis. He argues that a default policy of transparency could discourage witnesses from testifying, because they may be intimidated by the threat of retribution – from none other than the police!. This is about secrecy – preventing the public from knowing the abuses of its own police bureau. A smarter policy – and the one adopted by every other major candidate – is to support transparency as the default policy except in those cases where witnesses require secrecy in order to come forward and give testimony. This is the way to put adequate pressure on the police to obey the law, and to send the message that we will not tolerate the abuse of power. Our twin pillars of social justice and peace and non-violence make this a hard sticking point.

For a candidate that claims to be a champion of grassroots democracy, we cannot understand Smith's opposition to direct democracy through the charter review commission, or to basic election method reforms such as Ranked Choice Voting. The special connection between the Charter Review Commission and police accountability, combined with Smith's positions on both, make us totally unable to support his candidacy. We sincerely hope this can change.

For a summary of where the candidates stand on our issues and a campaign finance breakdown, check out a chart one of our members made: Portland Mayoral Comparison.