What They Say And The Truth

Clatsop County Commissioner Pat Roberts is now facing a December recall vote. The approach petitioners are taking is the same as that taken in the recall of Commissioner Ann Samuelson and the unsuccessful attempt to recall Commission Chair Jeff Hazen in blaming them for moving LNG along in Clatsop County but adds a charge that as a member of the NW Oregon Housing authority she failed to keep that agency out of financial trouble earlier this year. This is mis-directed against Roberts. As she states in her ballot response, it was she who provided the leadership that actually got money flowing back to those who depend on help for paying their rent after significant federal cutbacks hit the program. She says she also helped in getting the agency better organized. Having sat on many local boards over the years I can tell you that staff only tells you what they think you need to know and unless it just happens to occur to you to ask the question potentially embarrassing operational blunders don't come to light until it's an emergency. It shouldn't be that way and usually results in the firing of the staff director if it's clear that the problem could have been avoided. So it doesn't matter what position you may have on these boards under these circumstances. What matters are the steps you take to correct the problem and Roberts did just that.This recall is still about decisions on LNG made by the Commission. Decisions that were carefully considered. Vote No

Today's Mail

Peter Hansen, CEO for Oregon LNG writes:



Last week a letter from the Attorney Generals office was released alleging misconduct by the former executive director of the Port of Astoria five years ago. I am writing to point out some facts about the letter, which was written by Sean J. Riddell, chief counsel at the Attorney Generals office.



According to earlier statements from the Attorney Generals office, neither Oregon LNG nor I were ever targets of this investigation. Further, last week's letter makes no accusations or charges of any kind against Oregon LNG or against me.



The letter has absolutely no bearing on the sublease agreement between the Port of Astoria and Oregon LNG. In fact, the letter, which says the investigation "interviewed 31 people, issued 11 Attorney General subpoenas, [and] reviewed hundreds of pages of documents" never once mentions the sublease.

Additionally, the sublease was neither approved nor signed by the former Port Executive Director. It was approved unanimously by the votes of the five Port Commissioners and signed by the Commission President in 2004. Four of the five Commissioners have publicly and recently stated that the process was proper and above-board. Attorneys for all parties-including the Oregon Department of State Lands and the Port of Astoria-were fully satisfied with the process.

The investigation and it's conclusion have no bearing on Oregon LNG or on our sublease with the Port of Astoria. Our sublease with the Port of Astoria is a valid, legally binding contract and we continue to expect the Port to honor the contractual commitments it has made.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a great deal of speculation in the press and on the web about the possible impact of the Peter Gearin investigation. Some writers say this could allow the Port to make the case that the sublease itself is invalid. That might be true if the sublease had been approved and signed by Gearin but it was not. Gearin, acting as the Director made the recommendation to the Port Commissioners to accept the terms of the lease with DSL and the terms of the sublease with Calpine. That sublease passed to Oregon LNG. If an investigation were to reveal that the Port Commission members or the Port Commission President in 2004 had personally benefited from signing the agreement it might be an entirely different matter. There hasn't been any investigation regarding this point and there is no reason to believe it is necessary to do so.

The sublease was written in such a way as to give Oregon LNG unilateral authority to pick up two 30 year options immediately following the end of the first five year term. They did so and well within the stipulated deadline to exercise the option. This sublease is said to mirror the Port's lease with the Division of State Lands.

The current Port Commission has decided to dig in it's heels regarding the lease with DSL attempting to forestall the first 30 year option by entering into an agreement with the state to extend the first five year option.

Oregon LNG is suing the Port for breach of contract and the Port has filed a counter suit.

Port Commissioner Floyd Holcom has serious doubts that the Port should have to pay anything to DSL. He believes that, based on his historical research, the Port owns the submerged and submersible lands on the Skipanon and therefore should be able to forge it's own direct lease with Oregon LNG, if they choose to do so, which could result in a big payday for the Port of Astoria. Right now the money Oregon LNG pays for the sublease passes directly to the State to pay the Port's lease with DSL. If it is found that Holcom is right about the actual ownership then that would likely invalidate the current DSL lease and possibly the sublease it is based upon depending on how the sublease was written.

This ownership issue is key to this controversy.

Recall Outcomes

As we predicted months ago, Commission Chair Jeff Hazen handily retains his seat on the county commission .
Unfortunately, as we also predicted, the Commission Samuelson recall is too close to call with just four votes in favor of recalling the district 5 commissioner. The close numbers trigger an automatic recount with results due within ten days.

If Samuelson is recalled the commission must appoint her replacement within 45 days from the
confirmation of the election results.

Recall supporters are reluctant to say that this was a vote on LNG but I would have to say that because of the way the ballot questions were worded this is a huge victory for Bradwood Landing specifically. District 1 covers Warrenton and a slice of Astoria. District 5 covers a broad swath
from Jewell clear out to Arch Cape. To see such a positive response to the decisions made by the commission regarding Bradwood is a strong indicator of support when you consider that the voter turnout exceeded the predictions of the county election department for a special election. The turnout was higher than the previous special election regarding allowing pipelines in areas zoned for open parks and recreation which anti-LNG forces attempted to use in this recall election. It is quite clear that this strategy backfired with voters expressing some level of disgust with that tactic. That is particularly true in District 1.

It's interesting to note that just days before the election people got their property tax bills in the mail. Even with property values dropping everyone saw an increase in their taxes based on assessed value. The county instituted a policy of increasing the percentage to the legal limit of 3% every tax year regardless of actual need. Since assessed value is generally lower than real market value and certainly lower than what a homeowner might receive in the sale of a home or property then the taxes assessed annually will increase every year. At a time when local people are struggling just to hang on to their homes this policy on the part of the county likely created a backlash that impacted this recall. This would be particularly true in Samuelson's district which contains some of the most expensive property in Clatsop County.

The other factor affecting the Samuelson recall campaign would include the revelation that the commissioner contacted the Sheriff when she discovered that one of his staff had signed the recall petition. Regardless of the intent this was a miss-step in an otherwise well conceived and hard fought campaign and worked against her public image with those who would perceive this as an inappropriate use of her position quite similar to the charges leveled against former Commissioner Richard Lee in his recall from office.

New York Post On Walmart

NYP reporter CHARLES PLATT went undercover in the American heartland this year going to work as an associate at Walmart and offers a different perspective on the retailing giant

including the following:

Walmartwatch.com, for instance, is partnered with the Service Employees International Union; Wakeupwalmart.com is entirely owned by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. For years, now, they've campaigned against Wal-Mart, for reasons that may have more to do with money than compassion for the working poor. If more than one million Wal-Mart employees in the United States could be induced to join a union, by my calculation they'd be compelled to pay more than half-billion dollars each year in dues.

Walmartwatch.com provides the local anti-Walmart group with much of it's ammunition as they seek to stop the retailer from locating a store in Warrenton. As to the treatment of employees at Walmart, Platt writes:

In fact, the deal at Walmart is better than at many other employers. The company states that its regular full-time hourly associates in the US average $10.86 per hour, while the mean hourly wage for retail sales associates in department stores generally is $8.67. The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour. Also every Wal-Mart employee gets a 10% store discount, while an additional 4% of wages go into profit-sharing and 401(k) plans.

As to the uproar over the impact Walmart has on small local business operations:

The argument, of course, is that smaller enterprises cannot compete. My outlook on this is hardcore: I think that many of the "mom-and-pop" stores so beloved by activists don't deserve to remain in business.

When I first ventured from New York City to the American heartland, I did my best to patronize quaint little places on Main Street and quickly discovered the penalties for doing so. At a small appliance store, I wasn't allowed to buy a microwave oven on display. I had to place an order and wait a couple of weeks for delivery.

At a stationery store where I tried to buy a file cabinet, I found the same problem. Think back, if you are old enough to do so, and you may recall that this is how small-town retailing used to function in the 1960s.

As a customer, I don't see why I should protect a business from the harsh realities of commerce if it can't maintain a good inventory at a competitive price. And as an employee, I see no advantage in working at a small place where I am subject to the quixotic moods of a sole proprietor, and can never appeal to his superior, because there isn't one.

I found all of this rather interesting considering this reporter didn't depend upon what is said about the company, he went to work for them to find out for himself.

Here's the link to the article:http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fly_on_the_wal_K8hD47GcZBkh1v3SjNYldI/5

Word Of Mouth Forum: WOMF

WOMF, WOMF, WOMF



It's short for "Word Of Mouth Forum" and it is launching today for our area. The Webfoot WOMF is part of a new worldwide phenomenon in social networking. On WOMF you'll find citizen reviews of local businesses and services, a place for writing about community issues that you care about, a centralized place on the web to post community events, ask questions, start discussion threads and catch up on what local people think.



The site is family friendly with 24/7 moderation and you'll find that people who use WOMF are those who comply with some simple rules of civil discourse that are often missing in simple message boards. That doesn't mean you can't express yourself regardless of your take on what might be happening in the community.



Check it out by clicking the "Webfoot WOMF" link on this page. It's easy to join and there is a quick video you can watch to explain how it works along with simple tutorials you can access via site links at the bottom of the home page.



So let me ask you: Have you WOMF'ed Today?