Candidates Francesconi, Fish, Potter and Adams pay close attention to what follows. There will be a pop quiz later in the campaign.

Dear Readers:
Do we all agree that our American governments, city - county - state - federal, should be accountable to us, the citizens - voters - taxpayers, for how they make decisions and spend our money? Yes. Right. This doesn't always happen, say for example with the federal military budget which by all accounts is unfathomable, but it should. And would we also agree that when any of our governments establishes a public policy goal, that funds allocated for the purpose of advancing that public policy must only be used to support the policy and certainly not to oppose it? Stick with me. The juicy parts will come.

Government accountability for connecting public housing goals with expenditures turns out to be a shared objective of Gary Blackmer, the Portland City Auditor, and myself. On June 5, 2002 City Auditor Gary Blackmer issued an immensely important ground breaking report on the relationship between housing goals and public expenditures at BHCD, PDC and HAP.* Many of us who have worked for and been observers of government know that a significant percentage, perhaps a majority, of auditor's reports receive barely a momentary notice and then mysteriously disappear into some subterranean storage facility never to be heard from again. This report is a perfect exemplar.

Consider this. There are literally thousands of Oregonians, elected officials, appointed officials, staff for elected and appointed officials, the press corps, neighborhood activists, academics, political activists of every stripe, and just plain citizens interested in what government is doing to or for them who know that for more than three years I have written more than seventy HAP Watcher commentaries which are published on a web site, http://www.goodgrowthnw.org , that focuses on the need for accountability because there is a disconnect between public housing goals and expenditures. In the two years since the Auditor's 2002 Housing report was published not a single person brought it to my attention. I found it by accident. So how many people do you suppose know of its existence much less took the time to read it? I not only found it, I read it. (See below, Follow The Yellow Brick Road - How I Got To The Wizard's Doorstep. It's worth the walk.)

Blackmer's most important recommendation was to assign an organization to coordinate and collect housing data from the many disparate spending centers and then regularly report on its findings. A terrific idea which I whole heartedly support. Hang on we're getting to the good part. When I asked Gary if there was any follow up to his recommendation he replied:

From: gblackmer@ci.portland.or.us
Subject: RE: 2002 Housing Audit Report
Date: June 3, 2004 8:02:48 AM PDT
To: ellmyer@macsolve.com
Cc: mpmills@ci.portland.or.us

Mr. Ellmyer,
Thank you for the compliment on our Housing audit. The Bureau of Planning responded to the audit by agreeing to be the central collector of the data. I have not seen any reports produced by them, but I would not necessarily receive them automatically. I would suggest you contact Gil Kelley for the most up-to-date status on the recommendation.

Gary Blackmer

I then went to Gil Kelley and asked him the same question. He replied:

From: gkelley@ci.portland.or.us
Subject: FW:
Date: June 10, 2004 10:25:19 PM PDT
To: ellmyer@macsolve.com
Cc: gblackmer@ci.portland.or.us, sdotterrer@ci.portland.or.us

Your request was forwarded to Steve Dotterrer in the Planning Bureau. Steve
will be responding in more detail but suffice it to say that our "offer" to
be the central collecting point for housing data was contingent on funding.
The Council has not funded the requested position to date.

Blackmer is obviously under the impression that the Bureau of Planning has actually taken on the role of collector and reporter of housing data. There is not a hint that Blackmer knows that Kelley's offer (See Report page 119) was contingent on additional funding. This begs the question, What did Gil Kelley tell Gary Blackmer that would lead him to believe that Blackmer's recommendation for a single organization to collect and report on housing data was being acted upon requiring no future follow up on his part?

A Review of the Efforts and Accomplishments of City Housing Programs: 1996–2000 June 2002 page 3
"As a follow-up to our recommendations, we ask that the Executive Director of the Portland Development Commission, and the Director of the Bureau of Housing and Community Development provide a status report in six months, detailing steps taken to address the report’s recommendations. This status report should be submitted to the Audit Services Division and coordinated through the Commissioner in Charge’s Office." The question arises, Where are these reports and didn't anyone notice that there was no organization, no one in charge, no new reports and no follow through? And who would be the "Commissioner in Charge?"

It has been two years since Blackmer's report was issued and Gil Kelley's written response which says nothing about his offer to collect, coordinate and report on housing data from BHCD, PDC and HAP being contingent upon additional funding to be allocated by the city council. (See Report page 119)

Despite Kelley's assertions to the contrary, the city of Portland's Budget office tells me that they can find no decision packages or other evidence that the Planning Bureau asked the city council in any of the last three budget cycles for a vote on creating a position to coordinate, collect and report on housing data.

While Gil Kelley's "The Council has not funded the requested position to date" may be a true statement, it appears, to date, that there is no evidence to support the allegation that this position was ever "requested" in any of the last three budget cycles. The statement certainly implies that a conscious public decision was made by at least three voting members of the council to reject this particular item. "The Council has not funded the requested position to date" is of no consequence, in fact it is deliberately deceptive, if the position was never presented for council approval.

When asked, not a single member of the Portland city council, including the mayor's office, could find evidence or even remember anything that would refute the budget office's historical analysis.

So where does this leave us?
The mayor has authoritative statutory control over those spending $217,500,000 of public housing funds in Multnomah county. Her Director of Planning, Gil Kelley, misleads the City Auditor into thinking that his recommendation for collecting housing data is being acted upon and then he plays word games to place blame on a majority of the city council for bypassing Blackmer's suggestion when, in fact, he, Gil Kelley, was responsible for never putting it before the council for pubic consideration.

For years Mayor Katz has assiduously avoided confronting the issues of government accountability with regard to public housing goals and expenditures. Now it is revealed, that Gil Kelley the fox, who is under Katz's direct control, is guarding the housing data chicken coop. It's a small time government version of the Arthur Andersen "auditing" Enron's books story.

Candidates Weigh In?
While we wait to see what kind of judgments Potter, Francesconi, Adams and Fish will render regarding the sufficiency of evidence to replace HAP commissioners (Katz continues to contemplate an evasive response) they need to consider whether Gil Kelley should remain when the new broom takes office.

The issue of government accountability of public housing goals and expenditures is on the agenda. Candidates for mayor and city council must and will be addressing the issue from now until November and then throughout their terms of office. The questions I have asked are just a beginning.

It is extraordinarily difficult to make good public policy without good public data. I'm sure Jim Francesconi, Tom Potter, Sam Adams and Nick Fish would all agree. If you don't believe that then ask them.

* http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=27103


Richard Ellmyer
Portsmouth neighborhood, North Portland
http://www.goodgrowthnw.org

Follow The Yellow Brick Road - How I Got To The Wizard's Doorstep
From: ellmyer@macsolve.com
Subject: Collecting And Reporting Housing Data
Date: June 3, 2004 10:24:37 AM PDT
To: gkelley@ci.portland.or.us
Cc: erik@ci.portland.or.us, steve@weirscyclery.com, gblackmer@ci.portland.or.us, mazziottid@pdc.us, mhennessee@quiktrak.com, compol@aol.com, kandis.n@attbi.com, seltzere@pdx.edu, bames@ci.portland.or.us, tgriffinvalade@ci.portland.or.us, jfrancesconi@ci.portland.or.us, rleonard@ci.portland.or.us, mpmills@ci.portland.or.us, nf@meyerwyse.com, Sam@samforpdx.com, wwhite@ci.portland.or.us, mayorkatz@ci.portland.or.us, dsaltzman@ci.portland.or.us

Hi Gil:
City Auditor Gary Blackmer suggested that I contact you regarding the status of his recommendation contained within his ground breaking 2002 Housing Report that calls for a single organization to coordinate, collect and report housing data from the disparate agencies and bureaus that are involved with public housing expenditures.

I will surely have many specific questions but for now I'd just like an overview of the current status of this housing data central entity. Let's start with who's in charge and what has it done in the last two years?

Below are several emails showing the thread and thinking that lead to your door.

The last time I was sent to you by a public official, PDC Chair Matt Hennessee, you insulted Mr. Hennessee and me by ignoring his recommendation and my request to discuss a matter of interest to the PDC Chair, me and the North Portland community. That response will not be tolerated now.

Richard Ellmyer
Portsmouth neighborhood, North Portland
http://www.goodgrowthnw.org

From: "Blackmer, Gary" <gblackmer@ci.portland.or.us>
Date: June 3, 2004 8:02:48 AM PDT
To: 'Richard Ellmyer' <ellmyer@macsolve.com>
Cc: "Mills, Michael (Ombudsman)" <mpmills@ci.portland.or.us>
Subject: RE: 2002 Housing Audit Report

Mr. Ellmyer,
Thank you for the compliment on our Housing audit.  The Bureau of Planning responded to the audit by agreeing to be the central collector of the data.  I have not seen any reports produced by them, but I would not necessarily receive them automatically.  I would suggest you contact Gil Kelley for the most up-to-date status on the recommendation.

Gary Blackmer

From: Richard Ellmyer [mailto:ellmyer@macsolve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:26 PM
To: Blackmer, Gary
Cc: Mills, Michael (Ombudsman)
Subject: 2002 Housing Audit Report

Hi Gary:
I just finished reading your report. Very impressive. The most significant question it raises is this:
You recommend, and I would concur, a single organization to coordinate and collect the data flow for all public housing information and expenditures from BHCD, HAP, PDC and other bureaus and then issue reports similar to yours. What is the status of the creation, information gathering and reporting process of this entity?

My primary assertion is that public housing policy goals must be reflected in public housing expenditures. Your report aims to do that. Very good approach. But this report, as in another I have seen from your office, divides the city into half a dozen or so "neighborhoods" as you call them when in fact they are strictly speaking not neighborhoods at all but rather generalized geographic regions of the city with no political identity. The smallest and most useful units of political and social identity are the 117 neighborhoods officially recognized by the cities of Portland and Gresham. All of your future reports on this subject should reflect this reality.

Within the two years since you have issued your report I have written and published more than sixty HAP Watcher commentaries focused on the need for accountability in matching public housing goals with public housing expenditures. We are on the same track here. These commentaries have been widely distributed via email to a very large constituency, are posted on this web site, http://www.goodgrowthnw.org , and have occasionally appeared on local radio, TV, op-ed pages, columnists work and many newspaper reports. So, assuming that the single entity that you have recommended, and Eric Sten and Gil Kelly offered to support, has been established and operating for two years it would surely know of my interest and arguments in favor of establishing neighborhood map based accounting as the primary public housing policy making and auditing tool.

Thank you for alerting me to this report. I look forward to hearing from you on the status of your recommendation to establish a central coordinating and collection body for all the disparate public housing information scattered throughout city bureaus. I am very interested in this process.

 
Richard Ellmyer
Portsmouth neighborhood, North Portland

 
On May 10, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Blackmer, Gary wrote:

Mr. Ellmyer
I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond more quickly to your request; I've been very busy.  My office conducted a review of housing goals and conducted some geographic analysis of where the money was spent.  You can see the 2002 audit results on our website: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=27103 or contact our office for a hardcopy of the report.

We do not have the resources to conduct a similar review every year, however we recommended on-going tracking of housing activities and accomplishments.  I'm not sure whether such a tracking effort could report on your geographic policy interest. 

You asked my policy views on location of low-income housing.  Except for those responsibilities under my direct authority, I always try to avoid expressing any policy opinions.

Gary Blackmer

From:   ellmyer@macsolve.com
Subject:        Auditing Public Housing Goals
Date:   April 16, 2004 2:24:41 PM PDT
To:     dbilyeu@ci.portland.or.us

Hi Gary:
Some years ago the city of Portland officially established a public housing goal which encouraged distribution and opposed concentration of public housing clients into a few select neighborhoods. As you probably know I have been challenging BHCD, PDC and especially HAP to establish neighborhood map based accounting as the method which would provide the public with some guidepost to judge whether the policy goals and the results of program practices were moving in the same direction.

It just occurred to me that perhaps the office of the City Auditor may have some system of tracking this issue that I have missed. Perhaps your office has issued reports showing that the approximately 50 million dollars spent annually on public housing by BHCD has, in fact, been spent accomplishing the city's goal of distribution not concentration of public housing clients in a few select neighborhoods. Is this the case?

Acknowledging the fact that HAP and PDC are stand alone public entities, they spend an additional 165 million dollars on public housing, wouldn't it be appropriate and a benefit to the public (especially since the city council appoints these boards) for the Portland City Auditor to issue a report that included BHCD, PDC and HAP with regards to their success or failure in achieving the distribution not concentration goals for public housing clients? I am very interested to know your thoughts on this matter.

In addition, I have recently asked the following question of candidates for Portland mayor and city council. Their answers can be found here: http://www.goodgrowthnw.org/HAPQuiz3.html . Although you are not in the public housing policy making arena of city government I would also be interested in you answer to this question.

The city of Portland already has a public housing policy which supports distribution not concentration of its low-income housing clients. The federal government supports distribution not concentration of low-income housing clients. Academic research supports distribution not concentration of low-income housing clients. Matt Hennessee, Chairperson of the Portland Development Commission, has suggested a cap on the number of low-income clients per neighborhood. Given the overwhelming evidence and support in favor of distribution not concentration of its low-income housing clients a new, more specific public housing policy needs to be established for both the city of Portland and the Housing Authority of Portland. A policy with goals that can easily be measured and observed by the general public to assure that public fund expenditures are spent in support of the public policy goals not against them. This can readily be accomplished by neighborhood map based accounting.

Do you support a public housing policy goal for all of Multnomah county's 117 neighborhoods that establishes SIX PERCENT of the total population of any and every neighborhood to include public housing clients with no neighborhood having fewer than THREE PERCENT and no neighborhood having more than NINE PERCENT of public housing clients?

My follow up question to you would be, if the 3-6-9 goal were adopted along with neighborhood map based accounting would your office be able or willing to issue an annual or semiannual report that would identify which of the three public entities, BHCD, HAP and PDC were spending taxpayers money (that's $217,500,000 in FY04) in pursuit if the 3-6-9 plan and which were not?

Thank you for your attention.