 |
  |
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
News: After All
is Said and Done FIREHOUSE DESIGNED WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT Should a civic building be designed with input from the taxpayers who paid for it, or only by the city staff who work there? That's the question local architect Otto Poticha is asking about the city's design for a new $6.6 million fire station downtown at 13th and Willamette. Unlike the city's new library, the fire station was designed without input from citizens or peer review or input from local architects, Poticha says. "This is the fire department's baby." Poticha says such large civic buildings should be important showcases of innovative architecture and community style and pride and be designed with full public input and discussion. Poticha questions whether the city's future plans for a new police headquarters and City Hall will also be designed without community input. "The Fire Department or the Police Department or the sanitation department or whoever should not be given full design authority over civic architecture or civic spaces, that is the reflection of this community," Poticha says. "The issue is there is no process," Poticha says. "The city does not have a process for civic architecture and civic spaces." Poticha says the Fire Department shouldn't have been given the sole authority in designing the building without public input. "These are public buildings," he says. "You and I own the building, the Fire Department leases it as a tenant." Deputy Fire Chief Matt Shuler did not return a call requesting comment. Eugene Design and Construction Manager Mike Penwell declined to comment. Poticha faults the fire department's design, with a traditional brick façade and "fake" tower, as unimaginative "retro" and not "tomorrow" enough. "I find that offensive," he says. "It's clear they have no skill at designing anything." Poticha acknowledges his architectural tastes probably aren't shared by the majority of the public. He likes the new metallic federal building design but "hates" the recent retro-historical Heron building. "The public will like the [fire house] building," he says. "It's like Disneyland, it's a picture postcard." The new 28,000 sq. ft. fire station will be built at the southwest corner of 13th and Willamette with demolition of the existing tire store set to begin next month. Completion will be in 2005. — Alan Pittman
ACTIVISTS FIGHT BUSH ON DOUBLE FRONTS The timing was good for President George Bush as his Aug. 21 Portland fund-raising visit coincided with a Senate Rules Committee hearing on repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act (UPA) in Salem. The two events split the state's activist voice.
But the competing events didn't soften outspoken opposition at either location. Leaders from Eugene were among those who expressed their opposition at verbal "battlefields" 50 miles apart. The role of women was significant, as it has been since government response to 9/11 began threatening some civil liberties. Hope Marston led "the charge" in Salem, and Amy Pincus Merwin braved barbed wire obstacles to challenge Bush tactics in Portland. Marston is the leader of the Lane County Bill of Rights Committee which has helped spawn formal opposition to the UPA in six Oregon communities and more than 100 nationwide. She says at least 100 people from around the state attended the hearing, and about 20 had a chance to testify. Their goal is to get Oregon to become the fourth state to take a formal stand "in defense of our Bill of Rights that are violated by much of the PATRIOT Act." She is optimistic because "it is not a partisan issue, but has good Republican support, as well." Pincus Merwin, who broadcasts for KBOO, KWVA and Eugene Community TV, was among news media who got coverage credentials, but were immobilized behind eight-foot-high chain-link fences constructed for the day. "I still was able to videotape the police, protesters, and news media with a background of police gunmen on top of the Chiles Center" (at the Bush luncheon site at the University of Portland). "I wonder," she says, "how anyone can expect the news media to portray the protest that they can't even get close to." She says pro-Bush demonstrators seemed outnumbered 100-1. "That ratio," she said, "included the 520 well-heeled donors escorted into the center as they paid $2,000 for a salmon and salad lunch. Some, I'm told, paid $10,000 for having their picture taken with Dubya." She questioned the propriety of local costs for the chief executive's campaign fund-raising event being paid by the city and state. "Who pays for police to escort wealthy donors who just dropped a cool $1 million for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign? How can Oregon taxpayers accept any smidgen of cost burden for this fund-raising soiree, considering the funding crisis in our schools and in social services for the poor, disabled, homeless and mentally ill?" Portland Police Chief Mark Kroeker predicted the security costs would be about $100,000. Yaney MacIver of PeaceWorks said the police presence in such numbers "was intimidating … Not only was it disturbing to be hemmed in by them, but there also was no way for Bush supporters and Bush himself to see how large the protest was. We were all squished together in a block or two next to the center." — George Beres
COUNCIL SEEKS DILUTED NEW CODE OF ETHICS The Eugene City Council plans to adopt a new code of ethics for public officials Sept. 8 with some questionable ethics. The proposed code restricts city executives from engaging in graft and corruption but apparently does not apply to the powerful city attorney. Critics have questioned whether the city attorney firm has conflicts of interest in working for both the city and for businesses with interests adverse to the city. The City Council may vote to remove an elected official from his or her position if they find they intentionally engaged in graft, but they have no power to remove corrupt city executives. The proposed code gives the city manager sole authority over such matters. The new code is much weaker than the old Eugene City Charter. The old charter forbids councilors with money interests in city contracts from serving on the council and forbids councilors from voting on matters where they had a money interest. The new city rules are modeled on weak state ethics rules. The new city code would apply only to "actual" conflicts of interest where councilors knowingly and directly profit from their votes. A charter vote last year allowed the City Council to make up its own ethics rules. — AP
Amidst its own inner conflicts, the future of Mother Kali's Bookstore is in jeopardy. But this time, the issue is money. Board members called a public meeting Aug. 20 to alert the community to Mother Kali's precipitous financial situation, and to get an idea of how important the store's perpetuation is to Eugene. After detailing the store's budget challenges, Joyce Thomas, the board's treasurer, told the two dozen women in attendance that the store's future can play out in one of three ways: Mother Kali's could be closed immediately and plans could be made to break the store's lease and liquidate its materials; or staff can try and make it through the heavy fall booksale period, which could cover the losses incurred over the summer and keep it in the black until November or December; or "Mother Kali's just keeps on," said Thomas, although the marketplace and the community make that seem unlikely. "It seems the only chance at paying off our debts is to have the fall book sale," said Thomas. The onslaught of web-based book sales and chain stores has already claimed several independent bookstores in Eugene, and Mother Kali's has also suffered. "It's a socialist institution, and it's at odds with the culture it's in ... I don't know if it can go forward unless someone's got a lot of money and a lot of time," said Teri Ciacchi, Mother Kali's acting manager. "In the '70s, Mother Kali's was more than a bookstore. It was a gathering place ... we do have other needs besides the books," said one woman in the audience. A decision about the store's future has yet to be made, but Thomas urges that Mother Kali's could use more board members, particularly with financial and legal backgrounds. "Support your local bookstore by buying books, if you want it to be around," she said after the meeting. — Celene Carillo
Forty years ago on Aug. 28, more than 250,000 people joined the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. In commemoration, a march is planned in Eugene Thursday, Aug. 28 The march's theme is, "Fulfill the Dream! Work for Peace, Justice and Reconciliation." Marchers will gather at 5 pm at the Autzen Stadium east parking lot. At 5:30 pm, community elders and human rights activists will lead the march along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, celebrating the renaming of the street. The march will proceed to Cuthbert Amphitheater for a 6:30 pm program with speeches, singing and a reading of Dr. King's words. For more information, call 682-5177.
SEXUAL ASSAULT BILL PASSES IN SALEM Advocates who work to assure that victims of sexual assault have access to emergency health care including emergency contraception celebrated a major victory Aug. 25 as the Senate voted to pass SB 752. "This is a major victory for the women of Oregon," says Kitty Piercy, public affairs director of Planned Parenthood. "This bill will provide help for women who have experienced sexual assault and do not have insurance coverage." Piercy says the bill was stuck in the Senate facing opposition from Sen. Minnis because of the emergency contraception coverage, which is a standard of care in Oregon for assault victims.
EW's offices will be closed Labor Day, Sept. 1, and will re-open Tuesday, Sept. 2. Please note an EARLY ADVERTISING DEADLINE of 5 pm Thursday, Aug. 28 for our Sept. 4 issue. For more information, call 484-0519.
After
All is Said and Done Imagine you love your job, but there's suspicion about inappropriate charges to your expense account. The suspicions and an itemized account history get out to the local paper and next thing you know, you're reading all about it in the news. There's an investigation, even a formal audit — you are found innocent. Still, your boss says, "The damage to the company's reputation is done," and you get canned. Sucks, huh? Welcome to life the last couple of months for former FOOD for Lane County Director Caroline Frengle. This past April, former FFLC Development Director Joachim Schulz circulated a memo outlining concerns for FFLC's fiscal policy and direction. July 19, The Register-Guard reported that the FFLC board was calling for a special audit of agency credit cards, zeroing in on Frengle's spending. July 25, The R-G reported that FFLC had released the credit tab itemizing Frengle's purchases — a release made before the special audit was complete. On Aug. 16, The R-G reported both that the special audit had cleared Frengle of any wrongdoing and that she had been "discharged," which is fancy for "canned." In five quick months, Frengle's career had unraveled.
During our interview, I am struck first by the clear sense of grief still upon her, a week since her dismissal. She speaks carefully; her eyes get a little shiny through parts of our discussion. Her foremost concern is the reputation of FOOD for Lane County and "the good, good people" who make up its staff. Though she firmly believes that someone, maybe several someones, had it in for her, she refrains, for the most part, from mentioning people by name. She chooses, even in expulsion, not to point fingers directly, not to speculate specifically on why her career has come undone after nearly 20 years. Here, after all has been said and done, she sits down with EW to talk about the aftermath. EW: The events preceding your firing came to light in the context of inappropriate use of funds. How did it feel to be at the center of these events and this context as it unfolded in the public arena? CF: Well, I think it's two different things. First, the allegations and how to deal with them in a way that gives me an opportunity to set the record straight. I chose not to be public in terms of that, thinking I was protecting the agency, because not only was it an attack against me, but it was damaging to the agency — my first concern is the agency. There was just no truth in what was being said. I didn't want to get in a pissing contest or a she-said he-said kind of thing, because that isn't helpful. I chose — and was asked by the board, as were all the other board members — not to discuss these things in public. But the people who were leaking, or rather giving, information to the press didn't feel so obligated. If you say things enough times, plant seeds of doubt, tarnish my image and reputation in the community, then it doesn't matter what the truth is. Even board members who were good people decided to fire me — or ask me to resign — in the end, because the argument from more vocal board members was, "Now her public perception is ruined, and that's the perception of the agency." This was all leaked by a particular faction on the board, the damage was done, and then they said, "See now, we can't keep her." None of this needed to happen. None of those things were issues that were worthy of front page news. Then there was the personal part and how to deal with this in terms of my "public image." I've never been into image — (laughs) luckily. If I had been, I would have been destroyed. Primarily I'm a person whose path is more important than where I'm getting to. When these really serious, vicious allegations came out, I felt like I was walking around the community completely naked. And actually, it was like, "Well, I am [figuratively naked], and here I am." Whatever's left after you strip the clothes off, that's who I am. When I realized that, it was like, "So what?" I still am who I am. While it might be sort of embarrassing, it doesn't matter. The people who know me and love me, still know me and love me. And I know and love myself. EW: In the R-G coverage, your comments seemed measured, even careful. Did you feel free to give your side of the story, or did it seem that would only feed the fire? CF: I felt it would feed the fire. People said to me, "You should just kick up a fury, because they're after your hide, and they're not going to stop until they get it." I did what I could do to convince the board they were going down the wrong track. I spent a lot of time answering each one of the board members, trying to inject reason into the process. But minds were made up months ago, and most of what happened was to achieve an end. There was nothing in the audit — that came clear. The big hype was waiting for the audit results and all of this mismanagement, and there was nothing there. It was a very calculated, manipulative plan to get rid of me and make sure that FFLC was primarily involved in emergency food distribution, and that's all. [Balancing emergency food distribution with nutrition education and awareness has been a major point of contention at FFLC.] EW: Why do you think you were targeted and dismissed this way? Do you think it was work politics? Were there more personal issues at play? Was it some combination of both? CF: It was a combination. There was a faction of the board kind of behind what happened. As a strategy, several [incidents], not large ones, were lumped together, painting a picture to the rest of the board that was very purposeful — implying I had lied and had not been forthcoming. Then it looked like, "This is huge!" A responsible board would have, in my opinion, brought [the infractions] forward one at a time. In fact, I had pointed out several things that needed attention, and then it was turned around so that it was like, I'm out of control. As for FFLC running at a deficit, and this huge debt load we carry — it's more than we want, for sure. But we had a mortgage of $500,000 on the warehouse when we finished — we didn't get enough in the capital campaign to complete it. We've taken on $250,000 since. We had some difficult years and weren't alone in the nonprofit world, which is not to excuse that. But they were difficult years — we distributed almost three times as much food for the same amount of money. And it's just an impossible thing to do. We were in the process of coming to terms with that. But that was a big opening in terms of my management, like — "OK, she's not doing it." This year, without the audit adjustment made, we're in the black about $59,000. So, we don't have a deficit. On a cash basis, we're ahead (pauses and catches herself) — they're ahead. There's a huge feeling on the board, and only this board, that I've never run up against, having always worked in partnership before. One of the mantras of this whole deal has been, "You work for us. We don't work for you." There's some real ego involved here. EW: An R-G editorial (8/16) noted that FFLC has outgrown you, implying that with FFLC being your "baby," perhaps you couldn't handle the letting go of control that happens with an organization's growth. Thoughts on this theory? CF: If that was the case, why throw the baby out with the bath water? Why damage the agency? If, in fact, they just wanted to take a look at leadership — certainly we needed some policy revision, some internal controls, there's no question about that — then I would have worked with them. I suggested doing that — to come up with a two- or three-year plan to make sure that everything was on target and to find someone to replace me. EW: The same editorial mentions FFLC's board has "adopted a new set of policies defining limitations on executive practices … [that] should prevent the types of problems that proved to be Frengle's undoing." Was there any sense of collaboration between you and the board on adopting such policies together that might have avoided this situation, or at least allowed you to work it out internally? CF: I thought we were in a process of taking care of internal controls and policy revisions. I mean, it's true — I was there for 20 years. I did have a sense of entitlement as a natural outcome of having been the founder and person in charge. Boards come and go, and while they're the boss — and I totally respect and understand that — they are not long-term. They turn over. And so, in fact, I was the continuity for the agency, as well. A faction wanted me out well before any of this came up and, in fact, engineered the allegations and the leak [of information]. The group wasn't large enough to get rid of me when it first started. I don't know at what point it turned over. I had trusted that it wasn't a done deal and that they really did want policy revisions and internal controls, that it wasn't necessarily me they wanted gone. I was wrong. EW: Was there tension between you and the board, or between you and any co-workers that might have precipitated the events of the last few months? CF: Well, certainly after Joachim Schulz wrote the memo, there was tension between him and the staff. And there had been tension simply because he wasn't doing his job. Also, about a year ago, there was a board member, with the help of the chair, who was consistently abusive toward me and discredited me in front of the rest of the board. At that point, if the board had stepped in and said, "No, this is not the way we act at FFLC, under any conditions" … if they had been firm in their respect for people, like the agency is, this would not have happened. EW: Has this situation created increased self-consciousness or defensiveness for you in your everyday life? CF: No, it's been the other way around. I make sure I go to all the places I've always gone to. I have not "hidden out." The last couple of months have been so surreal in so many ways, because it's just so stupid. In terms of my feelings, they're very deep, and I do have my public self, but there's not much difference [between the private and public]. I'll be in the grocery store, and someone comes up to hug me — which has happened a whole lot — and I just immediately get tears in my eyes because of the goodness coming toward me. The goodness has been almost as intense as the bad stuff. EW: How does it feel to have worked so hard for so long at a job you clearly loved, and to have it end in such disaster? CF:I don't think this will settle here, because it's wrong. I have belief in the universe that things don't work that way. I didn't get to stay — and in personal ways, maybe that's just a kick in the butt, and I need to be doing something else. I'm going to be patient and wait to see what the next thing is. But no matter what I do, this shouldn't end, can't end like this — it's not the way of things for it to end on a stingy, nasty, malicious note. EW: Final thoughts? CF: The community has been the food bank. That's a value we've had, but it's also a reality. You can't have a place like FFLC doing that much without the buy-in of the community. There are thousands of volunteers down there, and thousands of people who provide resources. And we never ask for just resources — we ask for commitment to the cause. People are part of the solution. They've been participating for the whole 20 years — some of them have been there since the beginning — and they may need to step up and say, "Listen, this is our food bank. It's been damaged and we need to heal. We need to reclaim it."
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
