*snap*

Excellent letter Amanda. It will be interesting to see if you get a timely responce.

A couple of people have commented to me by e-mail that the 501(c)3 non-profit status affects organizations budgets vis a vis the IRS, rather than requiring neutrality or equal time on ballot measures. Neighborhood groups aren't likely to be spending much if any money on the Charter changes, so that isn't a relevant factor. That being the case, my call to Mayor Potter should have been to ask the ONI Director to clarify the rules. The main point for the Mayor is to remind him that he said the campaign would be a “conversation with the community

He has to answer in an affirmative fashion. Your letter is the equivalent of "have you quit kicking your dog?". Good job. Dave Lister

It might not even be an issue of their 501-C3 status. My memory may be fuzzy, but I seem to remember that the City Attorney advised at one point that the political restrictions which apply to the City and its employees apply to the Neighborhood Associations as well. I know that members of City boards and commissions are de-facto City employees and subject to restrictions. This might be true of neighborhood associations too. If that’s the case, this is a big no no. Even if the restrictions don’t apply by the letter of the law, they should in spirit. The Secretary of State’s document public employee restrictions can be found on their website: “a forum to allow political proponents and opponents to debate ballot measures may be held using public employee work time if equal access is granted.

Thank you, Susan! How delightful to hear from you, and with such interesting information. I received a nice e-mail from one of Mayor Potter's staff just after 5 p.m., thanking me for bringing the issue to the Mayor's attention and promising a response on Monday. I greatly appreciate getting prompt responses from city staff, and feel it's important to acknowledge it here.

That's excellent news! Thanks for sharing that. -Pete peteforsyth.com

Speaking as someone who is decidedly neutral at the moment with respect to the issue of charter change: It appears that some of you are all for neighborhood associations having autonomy unless there is the appearance that they might disagree with you about something? Amanda, we've established so far that your point #1 was completely bogus on several grounds: not all neighborhood associations are 501 (c)(3) nonprofits and anyway there are no "equal-time" requirements for invitations to speak to 501(c)(3) nonprofits. 501(c)(3) nonprofits are allowed to take positions on legislation and can do a substantial amount of lobbying for or against legislation. As to point #2, have all of you who are opposed to the charter changes and have been working against them urged everyone you have contacted to also invite someone from the other side?

I'm for Neighborhood Association autonomy unless there is the appearance they aren't providing an open forum for public engagement on important issues. When I wrote and posted my letter on Friday, I was drawing from experience with many NA chairs, particularly here in SW, who for years have been consistently reluctant to have guests from one side of a political issue, or one candidate for office, invited to speak without the other(s). Later on Friday, I found there's nothing in the ONI Standards prohibiting them from doing so. Good to know. As noted through the comments here, we've heard further information that my question on 501(c)3 status was incorrect on several counts. I disagree that it was "completely bogus". Mistaken and not the most pertinent question, yes. Intentionally fraudulent and counterfeit, no. District coalitions (not the city-staffed districts of North and East Portland) are 501(c)3 non-profits, and it was the districts where I've been seeking equal time as was given to the proponents. As I've been informed since writing my letter and posting it here, there are no equal time requirements. I'm surprised, and wiser than I was Friday morning. I sent a P.S. e-mail to the Mayor's office on Friday afternoon, with substantially the content of my first comment on this thread, to give more correct information as soon as I was aware of it. I wrote: "my request to Mayor Potter should have been to ask the ONI Director to clarify the rules. Obviously, I need that as much as other neighborhood participants. Many neighborhood groups are indeed striving to give equal time and opportunity to both sides on all four measures. But many more are questioning what they can and can't do, and/or inviting one side and not the other, and I would like to see the Mayor make a strong statement helping to take responsibility for a good, open, fair process for the next two months." In response to your second question, Doretta: I can't and don't speak for "all of you who are opposed to the charter changes and have been working against them". I'm coordinating the Speakers Bureau for one group opposing one of the changes. There are other groups and individuals opposing all four of the measures. So far, the Measure 26-91 opponent group I'm with has been trying to play catch-up in talking with district neighborhood groups. Charter Commission members made the round of these groups in January, before their report was final, urging support for the proposals and for sending them to the ballot in May. I've been asking for the same amount of time on the same groups' agendas, to give information about what else is in the proposals. Most districts are choosing to go with forum events with both sides of all four measures, instead. Most individual Neighborhood Associations aren't inviting speakers from outside their membership to give presentations. They're relying on area-wide forum events to allow both sides of the measures to speak, and/or on discussions between their usual meeting attendees. Most Neighborhood Associations have participants who disagree with each other on important issues, and discussion among members is more usual than bringing in outside presenters. Obviously, it's not reasonable to expect chairs to invite imported campaign representatives for those in-house discussions. I've been invited as a guest speaker to two Neighborhood Associations next month. For one, after discussion with the chair, we decided there wouldn't be time on the agenda for a thorough overview with both pro and con guest speakers, so one of their members is going to give attendees information and urge attendance at one of the forum events, instead. For the other, yes, I asked to make sure a guest speaker from the proponents will be invited.

Out of curiosity, doretta, is it that you're neutral on the general issue of commission versus strong mayor? Or tha you're neutral on the matter of current government versus this particular proposal for change? It's an important distinction, since the proposal is not the normal strong mayor idea, and the specifics are kind of messed up because it's poorly drafted. To my mind, it's one thing to be neutral on the general issue of commission vs. strong mayor. It's a little more problematic to be neutral on the specific choice between what we have now vs. a horribly-drafted alternative rife with holes.

The answer to your questions, b!X is "Both." The truth of the matter is that I've been extrememly busy doing other things. I have listened to one person from the committee talk about charter change, read a few articles, dropped in on your blog a couple of times and have read what Amanda has written here. I'm neutral primarily because I don't feel I understand any of it well enough yet to take a position. I will get around to examining it in more depth before the election but how much before is still a question. I've been hoping one side or the other would come up with such compelling arguments that I wouldn't feel bound to do more in depth research but so far none of you have convinced me. I have a great deal of respect for Mayor Potter and for the work the committee put in. On the other hand, I have some "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" leanings where this subject is concerned and I also generally respect your contributions and Amanda's and Chris Smith's--to name a few. It seems there is a lot of politics being played with this election that have not much to do with the actual subject of charter change and I find that a PITA.

Sorry, Amanda, I'd hope you'd know I wasn't accusing you of saying anything intentionally fraudulent. No matter how off the mark I think your point might be I have a great deal of respect for you and don't question the honest intent behind anything you say or do. I'm feeling a kind of crusading hysteria coming from the anti camp at this point. Your letter to the mayor is a case in point. Your riff on the 501(c)(3) thing came off as threatening neighborhood associations. It's like you brought out the big guns and started firing mostly at the wrong things with faulty ammunition. Personally, I think area-wide forum events are the way to go. In my experience the one-sided attempts at persuasion that typically get made at coalition or NA meetings tend to be spectacularly unenlightening. I find formats that allow some interaction among holders of the various viewpoints much more useful. I appreciate that you apparently do too. On the other hand, I don't care whether or not neighborhood associations "provide an open forum for public engagement on important issues". As far as I'm concerned, they should get to decide what is important to them and they should get to listen to whomever they want and not to anyone they don't want. I'm all for minimum imposition of requirements from the outside. To me, neighborhood associations should, as much as possible, be about what they want to be about not what someone else wants them to be about. If a given neighborhood association isn't doing what the neighbors in that area want them to do then those neighbors can get involved and change what their NA does. If a given neighborhood association isn't doing what you or I think they should be doing, then, as we used to say, tough cookies. I think that many NA's reluctance to take sides on controversial issues is a sensible choice. I always urge my NA to think of ourselves as a group that does things, not as a group that votes on things. I do think it should remain their choice, however.

I have a great deal of respect for you and don't question the honest intent behind anything you say or do. Good. Thank you, and I feel the same about you, Doretta. I'm feeling a kind of crusading hysteria coming from the anti camp at this point. Perhaps from me :) I'm feeling very frustrated that the promised extensive community conversation isn't happening. That you, as an involved person, say you haven't heard enough information to make a choice one way or the other, is evidence that some of my worrying is valid, perhaps - if you feel that way, imagine how much information someone who doesn't participate in Neighborhood Associations or blogs must have. Close to zero - only what they've read in the corporate media, probably. That's very scary to me. I trust Portlanders to make good decisions if they have adequate, accurate information. We aren't even close to that point right now, and there is so little time left before the election. Your letter to the mayor is a case in point. Your riff on the 501(c)(3) thing came off as threatening neighborhood associations. It's like you brought out the big guns and started firing mostly at the wrong things with faulty ammunition. Yes, I regret that. And am surprised at the intensity of reaction to the 501(c)3 issue. I think that may be because many NAs, whether independent non-profits or affiliated with a district that is, are extremely careful to honor the intent as well as the written rules - in some cases beyond what's required, as we now know. Dealing with my own baggage, I realize part of my angst is resentment at how many times I was told, and believed, last year when I was seeking to be on NA agendas in my campaign, "Sorry, we aren't allowed to have you as a guest without inviting all the other candidates. We can have the Commissioner because he's coming to talk about parks, but we can't let you speak." Too bad I didn't have this blog going at the time, as then I'd have found out that isn't in fact true. And then I wouldn't have phrased my letter to the Mayor as I did on Friday morning, rather would have gone with the afternoon version. Live and learn.

I have a great deal of respect for Mayor Potter and for the work the committee put in. I think, with time, it's likely that you'll come to realize that the actual product of that work isn't, in fact, worth respect. Where the actual fault for that rests isn't the immediate issue (although it concerns me), but with even the Mayor's office now admitting that they might need to refer corrective measures to the voters later on if this passes, well, the cracks begin to show a little more clearly.

Yet more information on what non-profits can and can't do (clearly, this is one of those issues I anticipated here): These links courtesy of staff in the Office of Neighborhood Involvement (ONI): Political and Lobbying Activities of 501(c)3 organizations - "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." This does include inviting one candidate and not others, and it doesn't depend on the amount of time or money spent. And it allows incumbents to be invited as non-candidates, as long as they don't mention their candidacy or the election. On ballot measures and other legislative lobbying activities, "In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status." As noted in the comments above, neighborhood groups talking about one side of a measure over two months wouldn't reach the threshold to cause problems. Note these regulations are in the IRS rules for charitable organizations registered as 501(c)3 tax-exempt entities. They aren't in the City's standards for Neighborhood Associations, some of which are and some aren't independent 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. This thread is a good example of a mistake in a specific request for action, that turned out to be not applicable, deflecting attention from the core value the request was intended to promote. In my letter to the Mayor, I should have asked for clarification of the rules, and buy-in to the goal of public conversation on the measures, rather than identifying mechanisms to meet them. But at least I, and I'm guessing some of you, know more about the rules for political activities in Neighborhood Associations than I did when I woke up on Friday morning.