Mr. Magoo,

The city failed to get a full and final release from further liability on their PERS bond issuances. They failed to obtain an outside guarantee either that the supposed 8 percent returns that justified the bond issuance was fact rather than a wild guess. The Auditor deferred to others about the economic wisdom of such PERS bonds . .. bonds that are actually held in the name of the City of Portland rather than that of the employee-retiree-beneficiaries. The PERS Lump Sum Accounts held by the PERB/OIC are available to cover city bond obligations were the city to wipe the slate clean of all such moral obligation bonds. I have made it clear to a group of PERS folks that it is in their interest to reduce their claims, whatever they are, to a final judgment in a court of law. (The swing vote in the Struck case, where I submitted a friend of the court brief, vindicates my position of relying on judicial finality.) I advocate the same too for the safety workers pension in the event of a switch to a new pension scheme going forward for future work . . . but one where I insist that there is not multiple tiers.

Wild guess government action is not accountable. I advocate additionally that individual employees are free to take the pay that is dedicated to retirement and put it instead under their mattress if that is their wish, for prospective work.

stephen, the issue of placement on the ballot is a no brainer. But I want more, I want to discuss non-spurious, substantive stuff such that Mr. Blackmer won't even appear on the ballot, in November. City attorney staff that are members of PERS and participated in, implicitly, the assumption of "liability" on the PERS bonds, and other ASSUMPTIONS of liability as with the tram, without the benefit of a court order to back up their position, is of acute concern to me. My target is the bar and the use and abuse of the power of lawyers on public policy matters. A legal opinion, particularly an opinion of a public lawyer that serves at the pleasure of a city council, is not in the same league as a judicial order of an elected judge, coupled with the availability of direct review to the Oregon Supreme Court. Bear in mind too that the court cannot, and will not, include a final resolution for matters that are based on future contingent events such as prospective returns on PERS bonds. The present assertion of speculative liability on the tram and the apparent escalation of additional expenses, subsequent to the earlier city attorney opinion as to the tram non-liability, are NOT incurred in "good faith" such that the city council or other public officials can escape personal liability.

This is not a merely philosophic inquiry. This is a test of the skill, judgment and ethics of the folks that claim membership in the bar . . . in the public interest. It is about criminal abuse of political power too.

An astute bond counsel would be mindful that they need to at least make a footnote-style reference to upstart dissatisfied citizens that can pursue legal action. The mere threat of legal action is enough to force a notation. Can you definitively dismiss the notion that I might run unopposed in November for City Auditor and that in such a position I could seek to clean up past unlawful practices going back five years? Are you willing to make a wild guesstimate on this issue too?

-- Ron Ledbury for a Debt Free Portland
http://smf.pdxnag.com/