Marc, your comment is exactly what I was going to say, only you said it better. Thanks. And a huge thank you to Mr. Feinstein for his reporting on this.
The issue isn’t whether government employees have First Amendment rights. They do.
The issue is whether a senior elections official, whose job depends on maintaining public confidence in impartiality, can publicly engage in partisan political activity while claiming to act as a “private citizen.”
For decades, courts have recognized that government may place greater restrictions on the speech and political activity of public employees when necessary to preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust essential to their positions. That principle is especially important for those entrusted with administering our elections. Public confidence depends not only on fairness, but on the appearance of fairness.
Neutrality isn’t just an ethics footnote for elections officials ; it’s the entire job.
Regardless of the political consequences for her behavior after the fact, shouldn’t we want the most qualified person possible auditing various election processes? If the city had resources for official election investigators to document what she found, then the outcome would have been the same.
In the same vein, this publication chooses to and not to spotlight various topics and events. Is that bias by omission a violation of the journalistic ethical standards I assume you hold yourself to?
Have you written a post to be published in the NW Examiner and had it denied because of perceived political bias? My experience reading articles and letters to the Editor over many years gives me confidence that a well written, serious piece of journalism will make its way to press if time and space allow. Challenging this paper's ethical standards is cheap, sloppy, and belies years of reporting. Do better.
Opinion pieces are held to different standards than straight news reporting. They are given greater latitude in analysis, interpretation, and advocacy, but they should be held to the same standards of factual accuracy. I would put this article in the opinion section.
Where are all the hypocrites around Portland who are always so concerned about “threats to Democracy”? This is ok, I guess, because that’s also the group who usually wants to defund the police and give non profits the key to the city. This is a clear attempt to squash the will of the people - as someone who signed this petition, knowing full well what it entailed and how desperately we need more law enforcement here, I want this person fired.
Clear, concise and spot on. I hope the Mayor and every City Council member gets a copy. Her actions are egregious and erodes trust at a time when we need to rebuild confidence in our Institutions
Public employees don’t surrender their rights as private citizens simply because they work for the government. But they also have a duty to remain impartial, particularly when their official responsibilities closely relate to the subject at issue. The question isn’t simply whether Susan Mottet was off duty; it’s whether she was acting solely as a private citizen, or whether a member of the public approached her because of her position and asked her to look into potential violations of election law. If her official expertise and role prompted her involvement, that raises a legitimate question about whether the line between private citizen and neutral public servant became blurred, creating at least the appearance of favoritism toward one side of a contested ballot measure.
That concern is heightened by the nature of the measure itself. This wasn’t a routine initiative. It proposed redirecting money from Portland’s Clean Energy Fund to hire additional police officers—an issue that was highly controversial and politically divisive within the city. In that environment, maintaining both actual neutrality and the appearance of neutrality becomes especially important.
Given today’s political climate, city leaders should understand that public confidence in election administration cannot be taken for granted. Regardless of where one stands in the national debate over election integrity, officials responsible for administering elections should avoid conduct that could reasonably create the appearance of taking sides in a political campaign. That is especially true when the issue is as politically divisive as this ballot measure.
Ultimately, I think Secretary of State Tobias Read made the more important point. Whether or not anyone technically violated a law or city policy, the entire affair is a bad look for Portland’s election administration. Public confidence depends not only on officials acting impartially, but on the public believing they are impartial. Once that confidence is called into question, the damage extends well beyond any single complaint or ballot measure. Tobias Read deserved two thumbs up for calling out the City of Portland.
The wagons have now been circled with the city auditor's office sending out emails proving that nudging a city employee with a stick gets a brickbat in return. Short version of many, many words: the auditor does not like to be audited.
What this points out is that our lauded election process is most vulnerable before any ballots are printed. Apparatchiks buried inside an opaque city bureaucracy can put their thumbs on the scale--and will. Geez--too bad about those nit-picky errors, so almost half of the signatures (no doubt provided by munchkins working long hours in a hidden windowless bunker) are tossed. No one mentions the huge numbers pols created to make sure the average Joe doesn't get to question their decisions, the true sin in this case.
The auditor has now issued its spanking; life will return to normal.
Brilliant summary of an egregious act!
Moffett is guilty of betraying our trust.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR
Is it any wonder we are troubled by our elected officials?
Marc, your comment is exactly what I was going to say, only you said it better. Thanks. And a huge thank you to Mr. Feinstein for his reporting on this.
The issue isn’t whether government employees have First Amendment rights. They do.
The issue is whether a senior elections official, whose job depends on maintaining public confidence in impartiality, can publicly engage in partisan political activity while claiming to act as a “private citizen.”
For decades, courts have recognized that government may place greater restrictions on the speech and political activity of public employees when necessary to preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust essential to their positions. That principle is especially important for those entrusted with administering our elections. Public confidence depends not only on fairness, but on the appearance of fairness.
Neutrality isn’t just an ethics footnote for elections officials ; it’s the entire job.
Excellent article
Regardless of the political consequences for her behavior after the fact, shouldn’t we want the most qualified person possible auditing various election processes? If the city had resources for official election investigators to document what she found, then the outcome would have been the same.
In the same vein, this publication chooses to and not to spotlight various topics and events. Is that bias by omission a violation of the journalistic ethical standards I assume you hold yourself to?
Have you written a post to be published in the NW Examiner and had it denied because of perceived political bias? My experience reading articles and letters to the Editor over many years gives me confidence that a well written, serious piece of journalism will make its way to press if time and space allow. Challenging this paper's ethical standards is cheap, sloppy, and belies years of reporting. Do better.
A tawdry comment without any justification.
2 problems. She did not look at other initiatives. Just targeted one she opposed. And she’s an elections official who must be impartial at all times.
Opinion pieces are held to different standards than straight news reporting. They are given greater latitude in analysis, interpretation, and advocacy, but they should be held to the same standards of factual accuracy. I would put this article in the opinion section.
This isn’t the Portland Mercury
Where are all the hypocrites around Portland who are always so concerned about “threats to Democracy”? This is ok, I guess, because that’s also the group who usually wants to defund the police and give non profits the key to the city. This is a clear attempt to squash the will of the people - as someone who signed this petition, knowing full well what it entailed and how desperately we need more law enforcement here, I want this person fired.
Clear, concise and spot on. I hope the Mayor and every City Council member gets a copy. Her actions are egregious and erodes trust at a time when we need to rebuild confidence in our Institutions
Public employees don’t surrender their rights as private citizens simply because they work for the government. But they also have a duty to remain impartial, particularly when their official responsibilities closely relate to the subject at issue. The question isn’t simply whether Susan Mottet was off duty; it’s whether she was acting solely as a private citizen, or whether a member of the public approached her because of her position and asked her to look into potential violations of election law. If her official expertise and role prompted her involvement, that raises a legitimate question about whether the line between private citizen and neutral public servant became blurred, creating at least the appearance of favoritism toward one side of a contested ballot measure.
That concern is heightened by the nature of the measure itself. This wasn’t a routine initiative. It proposed redirecting money from Portland’s Clean Energy Fund to hire additional police officers—an issue that was highly controversial and politically divisive within the city. In that environment, maintaining both actual neutrality and the appearance of neutrality becomes especially important.
Given today’s political climate, city leaders should understand that public confidence in election administration cannot be taken for granted. Regardless of where one stands in the national debate over election integrity, officials responsible for administering elections should avoid conduct that could reasonably create the appearance of taking sides in a political campaign. That is especially true when the issue is as politically divisive as this ballot measure.
Ultimately, I think Secretary of State Tobias Read made the more important point. Whether or not anyone technically violated a law or city policy, the entire affair is a bad look for Portland’s election administration. Public confidence depends not only on officials acting impartially, but on the public believing they are impartial. Once that confidence is called into question, the damage extends well beyond any single complaint or ballot measure. Tobias Read deserved two thumbs up for calling out the City of Portland.
The wagons have now been circled with the city auditor's office sending out emails proving that nudging a city employee with a stick gets a brickbat in return. Short version of many, many words: the auditor does not like to be audited.
What this points out is that our lauded election process is most vulnerable before any ballots are printed. Apparatchiks buried inside an opaque city bureaucracy can put their thumbs on the scale--and will. Geez--too bad about those nit-picky errors, so almost half of the signatures (no doubt provided by munchkins working long hours in a hidden windowless bunker) are tossed. No one mentions the huge numbers pols created to make sure the average Joe doesn't get to question their decisions, the true sin in this case.
The auditor has now issued its spanking; life will return to normal.