Thursday, June 2, 2011

Meeting the Challenge of Senior Underemployment – One of Our Greatest Socioeconomic Opportunities

Recently, I’ve had a couple of lengthy discussions with a friend who, like me, chose to move to Southwest Washington from Southern California. In those conversations, we compared notes on our different experiences with moving and in becoming a part of the community where we both now live. One of the most significant differences in our respective experiences is that my ability to find the sort of employment we had in mind for me, in moving here, has turned out to be much different than what we envisioned. I told my friend that one reason why reality turned out to be different from what we had anticipated was that I’d failed to take into account the impact that my (then) approaching the age of 60 would have on my ability to find the sort of employment we had targeted for me. I was surprised (and frankly, had my feelings get a bit hurt) when my friend, who is an employer, differed with me that my age had impacted my employment as I’d indicated. Since then, I’ve come to accept that it’s completely logical for our views to differ on this. My views come from the perspective of having dealt with this “where the rubber meets the road”. My friend, who I recognize as being exceptional as an employer who understands the value in hiring more experienced workers, probably hasn’t interviewed for a job himself since 1979 or earlier and that has to insulate him from a fully realistic perspective. Regardless, it alarmed me to think that there may be many influential people, like my friend, who don’t even recognize that this challenge exists. I couldn’t be more certain that it exists and that it’s worsening. With that said, I believe this present reality may hold a much needed silver lining for the restoration of our nation’s socioeconomic health.

According to Gallup, U.S. unemployment presently stands at 9.3%. According to AARP, unemployment is 6.7% for Seniors (people aged 55 and over). Initially, that makes it sound like older workers are doing better than the general population. However, since the recession began in December of 2007, the unemployment rate for Seniors has increased by a factor of 2.09, while unemployment in the general population increased by a factor of 1.86. Furthermore, the average duration of unemployment for Seniors is 53.6 weeks (more than one year) versus 39.4 weeks for the younger unemployed. Additionally, since the beginning of the recession, there has been a dramatic increase in early enrollment for Social Security retirement benefits and spending of retirement savings. For many Seniors, this means risking poverty in their later years.

The stats outlined above should help support the reality of the challenge I’m trying to address here. To take that a step further, I want to augment these cold hard facts with some living breathing human stories. Fittingly, I’ll start with the story I know best … my own.

Let me start by acknowledging my understanding that my age has not been the only factor causing my employment in our new home to be different from what we expected. Certainly, I have my own set of pluses and minuses. Another key factor is that, though I’ve come into this area on business since 1979 and I thought I had a good sense of where I’d fit in, I didn’t have a well developed network of local business contacts. The Portland/Vancouver business community is quite provincial and having such a network is a must. And, since we moved to Southwest Washington in mid-2005, that means we made our move just as the economy was slowing, moving towards the recession that hit fully in 2007.

What I did bring to the table was my professional background in Sales and Sales Management, with technology-based business-to-business systems-solutions. Our employment plan was for me to find a “mid-level” job with Base Pay of at least 60% of that which I’d had in my last corporate position. My Wife, Ruth, who had been in charge of the administrative staff of the Orange County Public Defender’s Office, was only going to work as she wanted to.

Here is a thumbnail sketch of how things have worked out with our Plan versus Actual:

We’ve been in Southwest Washington for about 70 months now. During that time, I’ve had four periods when I was “between jobs”. Especially considering my previous work history, it still astonishes me to note that those periods cover a total of 30 months. Though I won’t bore you with the related stats, without hesitation, I can say that I spent every day of these periods tirelessly leaving no stone unturned in my efforts to secure a job. The yield of those efforts included: a phenomenal number of interviews (with a remarkably high percentage of those having me included in the final round of candidates) and the five jobs I’ve taken. Additionally, due to my employment challenges and the erosion of the investments at the core of our “nest egg”, after a little over two years of “retirement”, we agreed that it was a good idea for Ruth to return to work.

OK, enough of my own story for now. As I said earlier, I understand that my age has not been the only factor effecting my employment since moving to Southwest Washington. To provide a bit more clarity here, I want to share some related specifics from a few other human stories. As I, also, mentioned earlier, one of the other factors that I recognized as negatively impacting my employment expectations in my newly chosen home was that I didn’t have a well developed network of local business contacts. So, as “I spent every day of (my ‘between jobs’) periods tirelessly leaving no stone unturned in my efforts to secure a job”, one key aspect of my efforts was to network my socks off. In doing this, I became well acquainted with many whose experience was not that different from mine. These included:

 A President of an apparel manufacturer. After two years of unemployment he accepted a position as VP of Operations for a heavy equipment dealer. That job lasted 1 ½ years. He has returned to consulting, as he looks for his next opportunity.

 A CEO of a company providing business training products and services. For three years now, he has returned to consulting, as he looks for his next opportunity.

 The General Counsel for a financial services company. He went into private practice for two years while looking for his next opportunity. Now, he is Divisional Counsel for a technology services company.

 A Director of Sales and Marketing for a software developer. The four years that have passed since he held that job have included three jobs and three significant periods “between jobs”. Now, he is working as a Manufacturer’s Rep.

 A VP of Sales and Marketing for a Fortune 500 company. He was unemployed for most of a year before taking on a role as VP of Sales and Client Services for a small local software services firm. Then, he moved to a job as VP of Sales and Marketing for a local consumer goods manufacturer.

 A VP of Client Services for an outplacement firm. The three years since she left that position have included two jobs and two significant periods “between jobs”.

 An SVP Worldwide Support and Services for a software developer. Now she is consulting while looking for her next opportunity. This followed two stints as COO for local companies and two times “between jobs”.

 A VP of Worldwide Sales for a software developer. The five years since she left that position have held a VP-level job with a marketing research firm, a VP-level job with a nonprofit, a couple of advisory/consulting gigs and several periods “between jobs”.

 A President and CEO of a telecom company. For nearly two years he was “between jobs” but got one six-month consulting gig. Now he is employed as a Senior Operations Manger with a nonprofit.

 A CEO/President of a beverage wholesaler. Since leaving that job, he has done over seven years of consulting while looking for his next opportunity. Now, he is working as a Manufacturer’s Rep.

 A VP Sales and Marketing of a company providing business training products and services. After about 1 ½ years of unemployment, he is launching a new company offering media services for businesses.

 A CFO-level person who had been working abroad. He moved back home to be with an ailing parent who has, since, passed away. During over three years “back home”, he managed to get only two months of consulting work. He has returned to a financial role, working abroad, for a U.S. Government agency.

 A Director of Sales and Marketing for a corporate continuing education services firm. This was followed by nearly five years that included consulting and looking for his next opportunity plus a 1 ½ year stint as a Sales Manager for a web-based services firm.

 A VP of Human Resources for a business and technology consultancy. This was followed by four years of consulting and looking for his next opportunity. Now he is working as a Director of HR for a small local investigation services firm.

Though this may seem like a fairly long list, I can assure you that it is not, by any means, an exhaustive list of those I met in job-networking, whose experiences were similar to mine. It’s not even a complete list of individuals whose experience was like mine, who are also Seniors but that is one thing everyone on this list has in common … they are all Seniors, at least aged 50 plus. Another thing they all have in common is that they are all quality professionals.

Unfortunately, the unemployment/underemployment challenges I’m addressing here haven’t been limited to me and my business contacts. Just this past month, The Columbian published an article entitled Older And Out Of A Job that addresses and evens expands on many of the same issues that I’ve raised in this article. I have no doubt that countless stories, similar to the ones I’ve listed and the ones detailed in The Columbian’s article, can easily be found throughout the U.S.

So, what does this tell us? Obviously, there is a lot of unemployment and underemployment here. Surely, the earnings of this group has been significantly diminished and along with that, the positive impact that this group’s spending has on our economy has, likewise, been diminished. Of course, I don’t know how my diminished earnings experience compares to the folks I’ve listed but here’s how this has played out for us:

As noted earlier, the Target Income of our employment plan for me was a Base Pay of at least 60% of that which I’d had in my last corporate position. My first job came close to matching up with our plan, with Base Pay of about 97% of our Target Income. Job #2 was about 68%, job #3 was about 83% and job #4 was about 67%. I’m choosing to not include the income from my current job in this conversation. I believe I’m in this job because it’s where the Lord wants me for now. If you want to know more about that, you’re welcome to check out an article entitled An “Off-Duty” Grandpa’s Perspective On Autism. Suffice it to say that my leading to be in this job had little to do with what it pays and that a calculation of how its pay stacks up to our Target Income for me yields an outrageously low %. Although a Target Income for Ruth was not included in our original plan, I think it’s appropriate to note that her income is about 44% of her pay from her last corporate position.

Surely, the folks listed above were affected similarly, with income as well as with erosion of the investments at the core of their “nest egg”. And, no doubt, there are people on this list who have found themselves in the position of needing to risk poverty in their later years by enrolling for Social Security retirement benefits early and by spending retirement savings.

So, with all this said, where is this silver lining I’ve alluded to? The answer requires taking a closer look at the folks involved than they seem to have gotten from many prospective employers and matching that up against certain aspects of the current socioeconomic crisis in the U.S.

In taking this closer look, the qualities that I see as being most important to recognize in these individuals are the qualities of their generation … the Baby Boom generation. In my opinion, the greatest overall value Baby Boomers have to offer is what I call a “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” This generation was lavished, more than any other, with education. Moreover, they were raised by the GI Generation, who instilled them with a great work ethic. That meant, not only did they get a great education, they actually went out and tried to accomplish everything they could with that resource and in the process, grew the resource by honing it with experience to create … “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” I have no doubt that you would see this reflected in the respective resumes of every individual mentioned in this article.

The aspects of the current socioeconomic crisis in the U.S. that I have in mind for the qualities of the baby boom generation to match up against, generally, fall under the heading of Global Competitiveness. Obviously, just reducing the unemployment/ underemployment of this group and making better utilization of this group’s “Great Wealth of Wisdom” would be a boon to the U.S. But just think about the impact this could have on some of the issues of our Global Competitiveness that are troubling us so much right now. Things like:

Education

Our diminishing ability to compete in the Global Economy because of the continuing decline in the quality of education we’re providing our youth is a common lament. More lamentable is that no solution seems to be getting implemented, generally and it doesn’t seem that anyone is offering a solution that can be implemented in time for the U.S. to maintain its position as the predominant global economic power.

Well, the “Great Wealth of Wisdom” of the Baby Boom generation can match wits with anyone in the world and that resource is available right now. Furthermore, by giving more emphasis to having Baby Boomers mentor younger workers, we can increase growth of this resource and magnify its impact. Finally, aiming this resource at Education Reform in the U.S., can affect an ongoing state of regeneration of this resource. If we don’t take steps like these, if we just go on as we are now, sadly, this invaluable resource will die with the Baby Boom generation.

Innovation

Lets see, innovations from this generation have included: DNA fingerprinting, the Personal Computer, the World Wide Web, OCR and text-to-speech technology, the Flex-Foot prosthesis, Controlled Drug-release technology, the USB port, Rechargeable batteries, Ethernet, the Cell phone, etc. Any questions?

Other

In addition to Education and Innovation, the other major areas of consideration for determining Global Competitiveness are: Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Environment, Goods Market Efficiency, Labor Market Efficiency, Financial Market Development, Technological Readiness, Market Size and Business Sophistication. As I said earlier, obviously, making better utilization of this “Great Wealth of Wisdom” would be a boon to the U.S. I think it’s just as obvious that these other major areas are where the positive impact of unleashing this resource would be most evident.

In order for the silver lining I’ve mentioned to become a reality, the remaining question is: What is the most expedient way to go about unleashing this resource? As you might suspect, I think I can help with this but I don’t think I’m one of those who we should be looking to for the best answers here. I think the Innovators from among the Baby Boom generation itself are those we should look to for this. Innovators like the friend I mentioned at the outset of this article, who has built a very successful business on his abilities as an Innovator/Problem Solver.

In submitting this challenge/opportunity to our nation’s greatest Innovators, I want close by pointing out a few reminders about the group of people who comprise this invaluable resource, this “Great Wealth of Wisdom”:

- These are not necessarily folks who are all on the verge of retiring. Most of the Seniors I know, who are at early Retirement Age for Social Security (62) want to work for another 8 to 10 years. For many of them, the unemployment/ underemployment experience that they’ve had in the past few years has provided further encouragement for them to work well beyond Social Security Retirement Age. And, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Baby Boom went through 1964. These folks are presently aged 47 so they may be looking to work another 25 years or so.

- And, these folks are a great value. If you stop to do the math, you’ll recognize that, with one of my four jobs that I included in this discussion, I was knocking myself out to do the best job I could and I was doing so for about 40% what was once just my Base Pay. Of course, I can’t say that there is a 1:1 comparison between my experience and the experience of others I’ve mentioned in this article but I think it’s a pretty good indicator that the “Great Wealth of Wisdom” I’ve mentioned is presently available at a great bargain.

- Finally, these folks are anything but quitters. With the individuals I’ve mentioned here, just think about the number of new jobs taken on, the “between jobs” efforts, the consultancies, the entrepreneurial attempts, etc. Sure, there has been ample unemployment and underemployment but you didn’t hear much about folks who were just giving up. Of course, the need for income has been a factor in the stories of these people but what’s a more significant factor is that these folks have a burning desire to make the best contribution they can with all they’ve been blessed with. Knowing that, I’m confident that, if they were approached by one of the Innovators I’ve mentioned, to join a newly-formed Silver Lining, Inc., the nearly unanimous response from this group would be like mine, in saying, “Put me in Coach!”

Saturday, May 28, 2011

The Sky-High CRC Light Rail Crossing Project - A Most-Important Public Forum


The Portland/Vancouver community is being given a marvelous opportunity to be enlightened and to be heard on the topic of the proposed CRC Project … the biggest public works undertaking in the history of the community. This event is entitled Bridging The Gaps. It’s scheduled for Saturday, June 4th, from 1pm to 3:30pm, at the LifePoint Church Campus – 305 NE 192nd Avenue – Vancouver, WA 98607.

The key elements of the agenda for Bridging The Gaps are:

- Expert presentations on the proposed CRC Project, Light Rail and practical alternatives.*

- Elected officials, presently involved with the proposed CRC Project, have been invited to discuss the project and to debate the issues.*

* Event organizers are encouraging citizen participation and questions throughout the agenda. To assure ample time for this, a Community Interaction time is being made available following the formal agenda, from 3:30pm to 4:30pm.

The proposed CRC Project is for a single bridge, replacing the current I-5 Bridge across the Columbia River, connecting Northwest Portland and Southwest Vancouver. The embedded YouTube video makes it apparent that there are folks in the community who view the cost of this scheme as outrageously sky-high. Considering that this cost is over 10 times as much as the cost of the I-205 Bridge that connects Northeast Portland with Southeast Vancouver and that many in the community believe that two additional bridges make more sense than one replacement bridge, the value of the opportunity that Bridging The Gaps offers seems pretty obvious.

Specific Bridging The Gaps agenda topics include:

Transportation Priorities / New Bridges

Spending Accountability / Funding / Oversight

Citizen input / Vote / Transparency

Confirmed expert panelists are:

Joe Cortright, President and Principal Economist for Impresa, a consulting firm specializing in regional economic analysis, innovation and industry clusters. Regarding the proposed CRC Project, Cortright has said, “The region needs to take a closer look at this mammoth project which would require us to go deeply into debt, tie up the region's limited financial resources for decades, and … there is little evidence to suggest that the bridge will achieve its primary purpose.”

John Charles, President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, a public policy research and educational organization that focuses on state and local issues in Oregon. Charles’ summary on the proposed CRC Project is, “Among the hundreds of projects we’ve seen, the current CRC proposal stands out as a doozy, throwing staggering amounts of money at a wasteful, ineffective plan.”

Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research of Washington Policy Center, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan think tank that promotes sound public policy based on free-market solutions.

Tiffany Couch, Founder of Acuity Group, a forensic accounting firm.

Elected officials invited to participate as panelists include:

Jaime Herrera Beutler – U.S. Representative (WA-03)

Peter DeFazio – U.S. Representative (OR-04)

Tim Leavitt – Mayor, City of Vancouver, WA

Sam Adams – Mayor, City of Portland, OR

Tom Mielke – Chairman, Board of Clark County (WA) Commissioners

The real VIPs are:

Not just Very Important Participants, in fact the Most Important Participants are the citizens of the Portland/Vancouver community. Bridging The Gaps can only be of worth, if YOU show up. Please do.

Monday, May 16, 2011

High-Stakes Redistricting Meeting Set For Vancouver


On Thursday, May 19th, from 6pm to 9pm, the Washington State Redistricting Commission will be holding an informational meeting and public hearing at the Hilton Vancouver. Frankly, The Columbian’s May 12th article on this does a fairly thorough job of describing both the purpose of the commission and of this meeting. After reading this article, however, I felt that there was one key aspect deserving of much more attention … the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process.

To illustrate “the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process”, let me start by asking readers from the Vancouver area how they think the Republican Governor they elected in 2008 and the Republican U.S. Senator they elected in 2010 are doing for them? Of course, my question is facetious … in spite of the fact that Clark County voters preferred the Republican candidate for Governor in 2008 and the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010; in both cases the statewide vote put the Democrat candidate in office. That’s the way it’s been for voters in Southwest Washington and that’s how it’s likely to be for some time to come. Typically, voters in the more heavily populated Seattle/Tacoma area, who tend to be more Liberal Democrats, determine the outcome of statewide elections. That may indicate some need for reform in statewide election processes but, for now, that’s the way it is. With that in mind, assuring that U.S. Congressional Districts and State Legislative Districts are laid out as fairly as possible, to result in election outcomes that are truly representative of voters in their respective communities, has added significance for voters in areas like Southwest Washington. That’s what this coming Thursday evening’s public hearing is about … laying out the way Washington’s congressional and legislative districts will look for the coming decade … and thus “the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process.”

As the result of growth in population since 2000, a 10th U.S. Congressional District is being added to Washington State. Of course, adding this 10th district will impact the layout changes of the current nine districts. Since Southwest Washington’s 3rd Congressional District is 15.2% above its target population, a district-size reduction is anticipated, to allow a portion of the current district to become a part of the new 10th Congressional District. Some reports state that this will make the 3rd Congressional District more of a Republican-district than the Swing-district it has been. My caution to Conservative Republican voters in Southwest Washington is to be on guard for Gerrymandering politicians using this as cover to allow them to set up the new 10th Congressional District as another sure-to-be Democrat-district. You already have zero (0) representation in the U.S. Senate. A 10th U.S. Congressional Democrat-district will only further diminish your being represented at the Federal level.

The State Legislative District in Southwest Washington that I see as meriting the closest watch during redistricting is the 49th. This district is approximately 2,500 below its target population. That means the area covered by this, currently; Democrat-district must be increased. Of course, Democrats will be OK with Gerrymandering this district to keep it as Democrat as possible. Voters in Vancouver should remain alert to this and insist that the 49th district is laid out as fairly as possible, to result in election outcomes that are truly representative of voters in that community.

Although I’ve focused here on redistricting considerations for two districts that I see as being particularly important to voters in Southwest Washington – the 3rd U.S. Congressional District and the 49th State Legislative District - the Washington State Redistricting Commission is responsible for completing their work as it applies to 10 congressional districts and 49 legislative districts. That magnifies the significance of this work and it amplifies my call for “the importance of citizens attending this meeting, to get involved in this process.”


Comments

Hopefully your process will


Submitted by Jeffery Reynolds on Mon, 2011-05-16 19:21.

0

+-Hopefully your process will be more bipartisan than Oregon's.







Oh who am I kidding. Buckle up.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Dems Play 'Let’s Make A Deal' For Washington's 49th District Seat


This is being written to encourage voters in Washington State’s 49th Legislative District to immediately do all they can to have their voices heard about who they want to represent them in Olympia for the balance of 2011 and 2012. According to articles in The Columbian, the 49th District Democratic Central Committee is on the verge of making this selection and they plan to take this action by the early afternoon of Wednesday, April 13th … about 16 hours from now.


I had hoped to provide some depth of information on the seven applicants for appointment to replace resigned Rep. Jim Jacks, to give voters in the 49th District an opportunity to express their preferences on this to the 49th District Democratic Central Committee. However, in a meeting on Monday, April 11th, the Democrat group narrowed the field of applicants to three and stated their intention to make a final selection by noon tomorrow and to have their selected applicant sworn in by 12:15 p.m. With that being the case, the best I’m in a position to do is to provide some observations about the three final candidates, to encourage voters to do what they can to add information to what I can offer and to express their related views to the 49th District Democratic Central Committee.

Applicant #1 – Sharon Wylie, 61, is reported as a “former legislative lobbyist”. According to The Columbian, she has declared herself “an environmentalist and a huge fan of light rail.” Of course, most folks who love the Pacific Northwest could be considered environmentalists but voters should consider if Wylie’s definition adds up to her just being another Liberal fan of the government over-regulation that continues to stifle the economy of the Pacific Northwest. And, considering that Clark County voters have consistently rejected light rail, voters should consider how her pro-light-rail stance lines up with their no-light-rail stance. In describing her experience and qualifications, Wylie noted her two terms in the Oregon Legislature in the 1990s and working as a legislative lobbyist for eight years, beginning in 1998. Although she references other work, as a consultant, it’s hard to find any experience that Wylie has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, voters should consider what real-world experience Wylie has that would help her connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

Applicant #2 – Temple Lentz, 35, who is touted as Campaign Manager for Tim Leavitt, in his successful run for Mayor of Vancouver in 2009. Since many in Vancouver view Tim Leavitt as the Candidate who opposed tolls for funding the CRC Project (a key to his successful run), who flipped to favoring tolls after he was elected; voters should consider whether they can rely on Lentz to say what she means and to mean what she says. Also, on the subject of “tolls for funding the CRC Project”, it should be noted that it was Lentz and her Husband who filed a PDC complaint against David Madore and NoTolls.com. The PDC determined that complaint to be without basis. In addressing the 49th District Democratic Central Committee, Lentz vowed to “advocate for the Columbia River Crossing.” Considering her attempt to smear Madore, it seems she’s won’t let ethics or the will of the people get in the way of her advocacy. Lentz also stated that “the 49th District is the last progressive stronghold in Clark County.” I can only guess at how to define Lentz’s statement but, at least, it makes her sound like someone determined to legislate towards her perspective of “progressive” and to not particularly be concerned with the views of her constituency. Additionally, Lentz promised to “fight for women’s right to make decisions about their bodies.” Of course, that is code for favoring wholesale abortion in lieu of sexual responsibility. Obviously, individual voters can determine how this stance lines up with their own. Furthermore, Lentz also promised to favor Labor over “the rich.” Voters who are employers, using their wealth to create jobs in the 49th District, as well as voters who are employed by these “rich” employers, should give this serious consideration. Finally, it’s also hard to find any experience that Lentz has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, much the same as with Wylie, voters should consider what real-world experience Lentz has that would help her connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

Applicant #3 – Jeremy Zegas, 28, State Senator Craig Pridemore’s Legislative Assistant. Zegas noted that he has worked on four political campaigns. In fact, Zegas stated that “All I’ve done in Vancouver is campaign” since moving here in 2008. Beyond this, I can’t tell you much about Jeremy Zegas. Pretty obviously, what I’ve said about Wylie and Lentz also applies to Zegas – i.e. It’s hard to find any experience that Zegas has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, voters should consider what real-world experience Zegas has that would help him connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

In closing, I want to share that in looking at this situation and this field of applicants, I’ve been reminded of the old TV show "Let’s Make A Deal." If you’ll remember, that show featured Monty Hall getting audience contestants to choose a prize from behind Door #1 or Door #2 or Door #3. Typically, the prize packages were made up of a nice prize behind one door, a very nice prize behind another door and a booby-prize behind the remaining door. A Contestant was said to have been “Zonked” if they selected the door with the booby-prize. My concern for the present status of the process to make the appointment to replace resigned Rep. Jim Jacks is that it seems highly likely that there is a booby-prize behind all three doors in this metaphorical game of Let’s Make A Deal and the result will be the voters of Washington State’s 49th Legislative District getting thoroughly Zonked (of course you can fill in your own euphemism here) through 2012. Apparently, I’m not the only one with this concern. State Rep. Jim Moeller (D), who occupies the other position in the 49th District, urged a more deliberative process than the one being taken by the 49th District Democratic Central Committee. Moeller and I see eye-to-eye on very little but we do agree on this one.

Comments

Zonk!


Submitted by Rab L Rouser (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-12 20:26.

+1

+-Since the voters of the 49th district were foolish enough to elect Jim Jacks they deserve whichever big-spending liberal the Communist Party selects on their behalf.

It's Door #1


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Wed, 2011-04-13 17:43.

0

+-Well, the 49th District Democratic Central Committee submitted their three finalist to the Clark County Commissioners and, they appointed Sharon Wylie. You can read the specifics in The Columbian's report on this: http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/apr/13/jim-jacks-replacement-be-announced-today-noon/. Hopefully, for the sake of voters in the 49th, I was wrong about there being a booby-prize behind every door in this deal. I doubt it but time will tell

Something's missing


Submitted by Chad Minnick on Mon, 2011-04-18 13:30.

0

+-The County Commissioners were the ones responsible for actually appointing legislator, from among the Party's three finalists. Why didn't the Commissioners, which has a 2-1 GOP to Democrat majority, take more time and consider the candidates more carefully?







It looked to us on the outside like the Republican County Commissioners simply rubber-stamped the local Democrat party's decision rather than doing their Constitutional duty of making the best possible choice. So now we have professional lobbyist from Oregon?

Saturday, March 19, 2011

“Is Anyone Listening?” Sessions on Columbia River Crossing Boondoggle

Mayor Leavitt

During the past month, several “Listening Sessions” have been held in the greater Portland/Vancouver area regarding the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project. If you’re not familiar with the CRC, it’s a scheme to replace the I-5 Bridge that connects Portland, OR with Vancouver, WA. Its current estimated price tag is $3.6 Billion, which easily makes it the largest public works project in the history of this part of the country.


The first of these “Listening Sessions” was one I announced in a previous article, entitled Vancouver Council’s Rush to Build “The Bridge of the Tyrants” . This was a U.S. House Transportation Committee “Listening Session” being held, in part, as the result of encouragement from U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. Although I was very pleased and encouraged to announce this meeting, I also experienced some significant related frustration because my travel schedule meant that I wouldn’t be able to attend. According to The Columbian’s account of this meeting , it seems that I wasn’t the only one who experienced frustration related to this meeting. I’m confident that Congresswoman Herrera Beutler’s intentions for this meeting, as a “Listening Session” were genuine. Apparently Committee Chairman, U.S. Rep. Mica, had something else in mind, though. The Columbian reported that Mica “wielded his gavel — and his wit — to cut short testimony on the bridge project”. This report went on to note that less than half of the people who came, “(hoping) to send a message to Congress, pro or con, about the Columbia River Crossing were lucky enough to get seats inside the small community room at the Clark Public Utilities building” and that “only five, chosen by lot, got to ask questions at the session’s end.”

Next came two “Listening Sessions” conducted by the CRC itself. These were held on March 10th. One session was held in Portland during the day and a like session was held in Vancouver in the evening. I attended and testified at, the evening session. Since the observations I would make about this meeting are, generally, the same as comments I’ll make about a more recent meeting, I won’t go into detail about this event. However, I do want to say that, aside from public comments offered regarding the final design of the CRC’s planned bridge, my impression was that all other aspects of this “Listening Session” were just for show. Since it appeared that the CRC was electronically recording this meeting, I’m assuming they will be posting this recording on their Website - http://www.columbiarivercrossing.com/Default.aspx. If so, you can check out the details of this session and judge for yourself.

The most recent “Listening Session” on this topic was conducted by We The People – Vancouver (WTP). This was the first in what WTP intends as a series, saying they are “scheduling meetings where representatives and subject matter experts will be invited from both sides of this project and both sides of the river to listen, speak, and dialogue.” Especially since I’ve been such a vocal proponent with WTP’s Leadership to do this, I’m pleased that they have launched this initiative. The Special Guest invited by WTP for their first “Listening Session” was Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt. Here too, since I’ve been such a vocal proponent of Mayor Leavitt doing more to engage with his constituents on this topic, I was especially pleased that he accepted the invitation.

Unlike the previously mentioned CRC “Listening Sessions”, I didn’t get the sense that Mayor Leavitt’s participation at WTP’s event was just for show. However, I can’t say I felt that Mayor Leavitt’s listening, though seemingly genuine, could be categorized as the sort of listening one does, with ready willingness to hear why they should consider adopting the opposing view/s of another. It really seemed more like the sort of listening a person does to better understand another’s view/s in order to respond with as much detail as possible to justify view/s held coming into the dialogue. This was magnified by the demeanor of the two Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that Mayor Leavitt brought with him to the meeting. Bringing SMEs along was, of course, a wise thing for Mayor Leavitt to do. However, their attitude (particularly with one) seemed condescending and adversarial ... no way to foment an ideal atmosphere for open dialogue. Here again, let me point out that WTP electronically recorded this meeting. I’m told they will be posting this recording on their Website soon - http://www.wepeeps.org/index.html. Please feel free to check out this recording and come to your own conclusions about this meeting.

Regardless of their demeanor, the presence of the SMEs that Mayor Leavitt had join him for the WTP “Listening Session” helped me to start getting a better idea of where the disconnect is between government officials, who seem to be hell-bent on the present CRC scheme and a significant portion of the community, whose attitude is, “This scheme does not map to what we want or need.” And, if I’m right about the source of this disconnect, I’d like to offer some suggestions on steps to take to move in the direction of resolving this disconnect.

As is most often the case, what SMEs present can be “down in the weeds.” Once dialogue is initiated at that level, naturally, it will tend to remain “down in the weeds.” Though I’m not a SME and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to try to participate in their “down in the weeds” dialogue, listening to it gave me the opportunity to observe that the disconnect on this topic isn’t really at that level. It remains at a much higher level … a level where non-SMEs, like Mayor Leavitt and folks like myself still need to connect before handing the matter over to the SMEs. With that in mind, I thought it could be helpful to take a second look at some of the views Mayor Leavitt expressed at this event and contrast them with my own.

The first views I want to revisit are personal ones. Mayor Leavitt pointed out that he moved to Vancouver in 1980 when his family moved here from Yakima. His primary purpose in bringing this up was to point out that he has found Vancouver “a great place to live” and wanting to maintain that reality is a key to why he “strives to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community.” By contrast, my Wife and I moved to Vancouver more recently … in 2005. However, we did so without having a close friend or family member living here. We chose to move here because we too saw it as “a great place to live” and we want to do what we can to help keep it that way. My point here is that I genuinely believe, at this high level, Mayor Leavitt and I are on the same wavelength.

However, I did notice that Mayor Leavitt’s views and mine began to diverge noticeably when the level of observations dropped down to those specifically related to the CRC Project. To illustrate this, here are a few of Mayor Leavitt’s related views, contrasted with mine:

Leavitt - The I-5 Bridge should have been replaced long ago.

GW - I understand that the present I-5 Bridge has its shortcomings and it won’t always meet the needs of our community. It seems to be meeting today’s needs though. It’s not like you hear reports of parts of the bridge falling off into the Columbia River or that it has anything to do with the present challenges in the very down local economy.

Leavitt – The CRC discussion has been going on for the better part of two decades. There’s been a lot of public outreach on this topic. We’re now in the 11th hour of this project.

GW - How is it that I and a significant number of others in our community have the sense that we haven’t been engaged with on this topic, if the CRC discussion has been going on so long, with “a lot of public outreach”? Why is it that, while making a show of “listening”, elected officials and bureaucrats predominant efforts seem to be aimed at keeping the public from officially expressing their views through elected officials or through voting initiatives? Considering the significance of this, admittedly, important project; shouldn’t this be done before determining that we’re at the “11th hour” and cramming a boondoggle that includes every imaginable bridge-feature down the throat of the public?

Leavitt - Folks on other side of the river won’t allow another bridge beyond the CRC Project.

GW - What?! Oregon is a sovereign State but it’s not a foreign country. If they really believe this sort of extortion is appropriate, in order to force us to have the bridge project they want us to have, wouldn’t it be just as appropriate for WA to install toll booths just for Northbound vehicles with Oregon license plates that want access to WA, Canada and AK?

Leavitt – We need to act now before we lose the Federal money available for this and while President Obama has this project on his radar.

GW – Again, I say “What?!” “The Federal money” comes from us. Why should our taking the time to assure that our money is spent on what we need and want have anything to do with whether or not our money is available to us?

Of course, the contrasting views above do not represent an exhaustive list. But I believe that the items listed are typical of the disconnects between the opposing sides on this topic and I do believe that the overall disconnect that continues to bog down this project remains at this level. With that in mind, here are some ideas on appropriate steps that could be taken, in order to move forward from here:

In my testimony at the CRC “Listening Session”, I stated, “You can’t ‘unscramble’ an egg.” My point with this allegory was that I didn’t expect the CRC to undo the work they’ve already done or to un-spend the money they’ve already spent. However, I did urge them to “stop throwing in more eggs and stop scrambling them” until the public is fully engaged on what they want and what is needed. So, my suggestion for Step #1 here is to simply put the brakes on this project until the above-mentioned disconnect is resolved.

Switching metaphors, instead of trying to “unscramble an egg”, I suggest taking the “peeling back the onion” approach to this project. In other words, deal with this matter, layer by layer, along lines like these:

Use both traditional and new media to educate the interested public on each major issue. Then, using the same tools, determine how that public sees the need, as well as what they want, on each of these issues. Where there seems to be consensus, close the issue and move on.

For issues where predominant consensus isn’t clear, schedule real listening sessions and/or voting initiatives. Here too, when this process produces consensus on an issue, close it and move on.

Using this sort of approach, as Step #2 will eventually allow us to arrive at a real 11th hour, not an artificial one.

I know this seems like an overly simple approach to addressing a major disconnect about a $3.6 Billion project. However, it does appear to me that, somehow along the way, some simple basic high-level understandings were not achieved before the project moved along, getting way “down in the weeds”, to a point where no one seems to see a way out without a result being forced on one side or the other. I, also, recognize that, even if it makes sense to many, it may not be realistic to expect my suggested approach to be taken by all the governmental entities involved. My hope is that this approach will, at least, be adopted by the City of Vancouver, with Mayor Tim Leavitt as its Champion. Even if this ended up meaning that Vancouver was the “lone voice in the wilderness”, with a position on this project that opposed the position of every other governmental entity involved, Tim Leavitt could hold his head high while continuing as Mayor and afterwards, knowing that taking this stand provides the strongest affirmation of his commitment to “(strive) to make decisions that are in the best interest of (our) community.”

Comments

A Bridge too far Removed from Reality


Submitted by Mike M Boyer on Sat, 2011-03-19 11:15.

+3

+-Since Oregon will NOT tolerate a third bridge it must be that our current Interstate bridge will have to be demolished before construction on the Pie-In-The-Sky bridge can begin.







When I build myself a newer and better house I do not demolish my old one. I sell it or rent it out.







The Folly of the Light Rail Mafia never ceases to amaze me.

What I wanted to know and


Submitted by judyinwash on Mon, 2011-03-21 05:50.

0

+-What I wanted to know and didn’t hear – what were the factors that changed between 1999 and 2006 – when light rail was written into their results, but not before. Why WON'T Portland let us build other bridges? Why work JUST on the I-5 bridge?







I heard on the radio yesterday there was a poll taken in Oregon and 60% want the new bridge. Why didn’t they poll Clark County who will be most affected by it?







And what happens when the fiat system (federal reserve notes) are only worth 1 cent on the dollar? Can we get our money back if they can’t finish it?







I'm looking into the possibility of working from home for the company I work for in Portland. I already pay almost $200/month just for parking! I can't afford another $100/month just to travel the bridge!







I'm so angry about this whole thing and NO ONE will listen!

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Vancouver Council’s Rush to Build “The Bridge of the Tyrants”

If you’re not familiar with the Portland/Vancouver area, you may not be aware of a bridge across the Columbia River known as The Bridge of the Gods. It’s about 40 miles east of the Portland/Vancouver metro area and it connects Cascade Locks, OR with Stevenson, WA. Although the bridge is actually named after a geologic event involving a landslide that temporarily dammed the Columbia River, most tourists assume that the name of the bridge comes from the “heavenly” views one can get of the Columbia Gorge, as you cross the bridge. Considering that The Bridge of the Gods is a two-lane bridge, opened in 1928, its present-day use really is more fitting for tourists than for use as a vital commercial link.


Destined for far broader notoriety than The Bridge of the Gods is what I am hereby dubbing The Bridge of the Tyrants … the $3.6 Billion scheme presently known as the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project. According to today’s article in The Columbian, entitled Vancouver council backs cable-stayed bridge design, the latest episode in this tale has Vancouver’s City Council rushing to settle on a final bridge design, due to pressure being applied by the Democrat Governor of Washington, along with the Democrat Governor of Oregon. This, in spite of the fact that the Portland/Vancouver area constituents of these elected officials have not been given the opportunity to determine what, if any, new bridge they favor. In fact, the overwhelming majority of opinions coming from these constituents seem to be opposed to the present CRC scheme and yet these elected officials appear fully determined to have their way in this matter, regardless of the objections of the public.

One aspect of today’s article in The Columbian that reflects the above-mentioned tyrannical determination of current elected officials was the mention of Vancouver’s Mayor, Tim Leavitt and Vancouver City Councilor, Jeanne Harris, as serving on a Project Sponsors Council, advising the governors. As you may recall, Leavitt is the Mayor who opposed a toll bridge when he was running for office but he reversed that position once he was elected. And, try as she may to forget her YouTube infamy for her “Gavel Down!” performance, doing all she could to stifle any comments in opposition to the CRC scheme at a Vancouver City Council Meeting, that’s who Jeanne Harris is and who she continues to be. Being reminded of who these elected officials are should give you a pretty clear picture that they won’t be speaking up in this regard on behalf of the constituents they were elected to represent. If you want any further clarification, it should help for you to know that these same folks were recently successful in marginalizing their fellow-City Councilor, Jeanne Stewart, by removing her from any appointments where she would represent the Vancouver City Council on matters related to the CRC. In a previous article, entitled Revelations from a Town “Brawl” Meeting in Vancouver, WA, I referred to Jeanne Stewart by saying: “Thankfully, (the meeting) also featured a Vancouver City Councilor who I think typifies the very sort of Citizen Leadership our community is crying out for.” I’m sickened to know that, for now, the tyrants who call themselves her fellow-City Councilors, have silenced her voice, boldly speaking out on behalf of her constituents.

Another aspect of today’s article in The Columbian that reflects our elected official’s tyrannical determination is that there was no mention of the U.S. House Transportation Committee’s “Listening Session”, scheduled to be held in Vancouver this coming Monday. I provided an overview about this meeting in a recent article entitled Herrera Beutler Announces: People Will be Heard Prior to “Gavel Down” on CRC Project. In announcing this meeting, U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler said, “I agree that this issue is huge. We can’t afford to get this wrong. I believe we need a safe bridge that moves people and freight efficiently. Beyond that, I have not had enough answers about what it looks like and how it will be funded. The whole purpose for this listening session is for you to tell us what you want. I want the chairman of the committee to hear from you. I believe we need something, but we don’t need it at any price.” When I posted this article, I wasn’t able to provide details on the specific time and location of the meeting. Even today, Herrera Beutler’s Communications Director let me know that they’re still nailing down final details and that they’re not ready to publicly announce anything until the information is firmed up. However, I want to do all I can to get out the word and to encourage as many Portland/Vancouver area residents as possible to attend this meeting and to do all they can to have their voices heard. So, here is the unofficial information I have on the time and location for this meeting, which will be open to the public:

Monday, February 21, 2011
9:00 a.m to 11:00 a.m.
Vancouver Service Center
1200 Fort Vancouver Way
Vancouver, WA

I’ve begun to wonder if it will take public protests, like those recently seen in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, in order to stop this local tyrannical fiasco. Perhaps we will have to show up at Esther Short Park in Vancouver and in Pioneer Square in Portland with signs reading things like:

Pull the Plug on the CRC

Stop the CRC

No CRC

Yes 192nd Ave Bridge

FastTrack 192nd Ave Bridge

No Tolls

No Light Rail

Stop the Waste

No More Debt!

Keep FREEways!

Fire the CRC!

No Bureaucracy!

No Bureaucrats!

Meanwhile, before those protests and before we send Leavitt and Harris off to Vancouver’s version of Sharm El Sheikh, show up ready to speak your piece on this topic (and wave signs like those noted above, if you’d like) at this coming Monday’s critical U.S. House Transportation Committee’s “Listening Session”.

Comments
 
bridge


Submitted by Michael Frome (not verified) on Tue, 2011-02-15 19:41.

0

+-Gary, there are at least some of us who are dead set against any new spending of any sort that is not absolutely urgent in nature. This bridge business is not (to my understanding) urgent. Yes, I've had to commute across it before. Is the thing seriously in danger of falling into the river from decrepitude? If not, we need to make do with what we've got until economic times improve. Which will be a while. Especially in the face of continual profligate boondoggle spending.



What very much annoys me is some of the same people who whistle endlessly about how we mustn't dare make any gov't cuts because Little Timmy will Go Hungry (or some such pabulum) will sit there and defend this kind of outlay without any apparent sense of irony at all.



What I'd like to know is who will be the financial beneficiaries of this ridiculously inflated expenditure of public funds. Which companies, which unions, which PACs funding which politicians. Them and their so-called "prevailing wage". Fie on all of them.

I'm guessing that was the


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-02-16 08:27.

0

+-I'm guessing that was the same sentiment the people said before the bridge collapsed a few years back in Wisconsin, killing a number of people. Quite frankly why do we keep waiting for a major disaster to spur us to action? Why not get ahead of the problem and actually make an investment in our national infrastructure like Eisenhower did in the 1950s?

Follow the money.


Submitted by Steven J. Nelson (not verified) on Wed, 2011-02-16 11:04.

0

+-Mike you are right. We need to follow the money trail. Check into the train manufacture's and the design firm's campaign contributions and political entanglements.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Herrera Beutler Announces: People Will be Heard Prior to “Gavel Down” on CRC Project

At her first Clark County town hall meeting since taking office, U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler addressed many of the topics that are uppermost in the minds of her constituents. From my perspective, she was successful in doing this for two reasons: (1) Most of the town hall agenda was set aside for open Q&A between attendees and the Congresswoman and (2) It was obvious that she and her staff have been working hard to be well informed on the topics that were raised and to be able to report related progress that their efforts have already yielded.


For my money, the most significant question dealt with by Herrera Beutler was when she was asked her view on the funding and construction of a new Columbia River Crossing (CRC). Considering that the CRC is anticipated to be the biggest public works project in the history of our area, I think it’s fair to say that this was the most significant question dealt with by our Congresswoman not just for my money but for the money of everyone living and working in the greater Portland/Vancouver area. I have to admit that I was very pleased to hear Rep. Herrera Beutler say that she supports a new bridge but that she will take her direction on the topic from her constituents. Especially in view of the “Gavel Down” demeanor of the Vancouver City Council on this matter that says, “We know what’s best for the public, no matter what they’re saying themselves”, this is very welcome news.

Of course, saying that she will take her direction on this topic from her constituents is nice. What is more important is that our Congresswoman was able to point to immediate action to go along with her words. As a member of the House Transportation Committee, Rep. Herrera Beutler announced that the committee’s chairman will be in Vancouver on Feb. 21 to listen to the views of residents of the 3rd Congressional District about the CRC project. In making this announcement, Herrera Beutler said, “I agree that this issue is huge. We can’t afford to get this wrong. I believe we need a safe bridge that moves people and freight efficiently. Beyond that, I have not had enough answers about what it looks like and how it will be funded. The whole purpose for this listening session is for you to tell us what you want. I want the chairman of the committee to hear from you. I believe we need something, but we don’t need it at any price.”

Although the specific time and location for this “listening session” has not been set, the related Press Release from the Congresswoman’s office provides the following summary of this meeting:

The Committee will hold similar listening sessions in various regions throughout the country regarding the upcoming transportation reauthorization bill, legislation to authorize funding for the federal share of the nation’s infrastructure projects. The Chairman of the Committee, U.S. Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), will be personally facilitating the listening session. Southwest Washington has a direct link to the nation’s transportation and infrastructure planning with Herrera Beutler serving on the Committee.


I’ll be doing what I can to “get the word out”, as soon as I receive the Press Release covering specifics on the time and location for this “listening session”. With that said, I want to start encouraging you now to do all you can to be present for this meeting and for you to encourage as many others as you can to do likewise. Unlike a meeting of the Vancouver City Council, Jeanne Harris won’t be present to shriek “Gavel Down!”, keeping you from expressing your views on this topic. But, if you don’t show up to take advantage of this great opportunity, the effect will be the same.