Isaac Laquedem

Bill Gates raises money for the Old School (a story that should be true)

A Laquedem friend tells the following story, which if it is not true, should be:

A few years ago, Bill Gates was asked to contribute to his alma mater, as part of the lead-up to the 25th reunion of his college class.  He pledged $25 million.  He then called one of his old roommates to ask the roommate to join in, and (supposedly) the conversation went something like this:

"Bob, this is Bill.  As you know, our 25th reunion is coming up, when traditionally we make large gifts to the Old School.  I'm giving $25 million, one million dollars for every year since the class graduated.  That's what we should be giving.  Can the Old School count on you for $25 million also?"

"Bill, you're forgetting that you're the world's richest man.  You're a gazillionaire.  With all due respect, $25 million is a lot of money to almost everyone else.  I can't possibly give $25 million."

"I suppose you're right, Bob."

"Bill, $25 million is way out of my range.  I couldn't make a gift like that."  Pause.  "I'll give $17 million, but that's all."

Basic Rights Oregon ignores an old political maxim

If you are going to be involved in politics, whether as an elected official, a lobbyist, an interest group, or a contributor who sometimes asks for a favor, one essential skill to have is how to support your friends without turning their political opponents into your enemies.  It's a delicate skill that takes time to learn.  I once asked a backroom operator why he gave money to both candidates in a race, and he said cheerfully, "I like them all!"  Behind his jest was a point: he wanted to be on good terms with the eventual winner.  Even in races where he had a favorite, he made a point of not unnecessarily antagonizing the other candidates.  An 1940s-era operative who supported candidate A put this principle this way after B beat A: "We were for A, but we were never against B."

For the past several weeks a lively debate has been going on in other corners of the local blogosphere, and I suspect in conference rooms as well, about whether Basic Rights Oregon fumbled (Worldwide Pablo uses a different f-word here) this principle in how it handled the race between Diane Linn and Ted Wheeler for the Multnomah County Commission, where it clearly endorsed Ms. Linn. 

Some background, as I understand it (and please correct me if I get this wrong):  Basic Rights Oregon may endorse a candidate -- that is, recommend voting for a candidate -- but it mainly (exclusively?) "greenlights" candidates.  To "greenlight" a candidate means that BRO says that the candidate's views on, and history with, issues of importance to gays and lesbians are acceptable to BRO.  A greenlight is not a recommendation to vote for that candidate, and BRO may greenlight several candidates in one race.

As chair of the Multnomah County Commission, Ms. Linn pushed through the county's brief recognition of same-sex marriages, an issue of importance to gays and lesbians, and BRO understandably greenlighted her.  BRO did not, however, greenlight Mr. Wheeler, whose record on those issues apparently contains nothing objectionable to BRO but simply doesn't contain enough that BRO considers positive.  A blog called "BRO Watch" started up, and many of the posts on BRO Watch argue that BRO acted against its rules, and against its best interests, when it decided not to greenlight Mr. Wheeler.  It would have been easy for BRO (and any group caught in a similar pickle) to say, "We find the views of both candidates acceptable.  We recommend voting for Candidate A because Candidate A went above and beyond the call of duty in taking action on an issue of importance to us."  One other reason BRO endorsed Ms. Linn and did not greenlight Mr. Wheeler is that it followed the apothegm "Dance with them that brung you," and Ms. Linn did put her political capital on the line to support same-sex marriage for BRO.

As it happened, the issue of same-sex marriage didn't affect the outcome of the Linn-Wheeler race.  About 40% of the Multnomah County voters voted against Measure 36, the statewide ban on same-sex marriage, in November 2004, but only 20% voted to re-elect Diane Linn, so it's clear that a fair number of the supporters of same-sex marriage voted for Mr. Wheeler.

I predict that Mr. Wheeler will give the members of Basic Rights Oregon a respectful hearing, if they should call on him after he takes office, but BRO won't have the same access and influence at the county that it enjoyed during Ms. Linn's administration.  But BRO shouldn't be surprised or offended if Mr. Wheeler saves most of his dances for "them that brung him."

[BlueOregon has an extensive discussion, here.]

1946: J. Leroy Davidson teaches the State Department about modern art

In the mid-1970s I came to know an academic named J. Leroy Davidson (1908-1980), a professor who had been the chairman of the Art Department at UCLA and who after retiring spent a little time in Portland. Mr. Davidson and his wife Martha were experts on the art of Asia, and of India in particular, and had a splendid collection of Indian, Tibetan, and Chinese scrolls, sculptures, and artifacts.  They willingly talked about their collection and where the pieces came from.  And they had some interesting pieces: one Tibetan statue dated back to the 13th century.

Mr. Davidson, who was related to me in a convoluted way,never talked about his past, and I didn't think to ask.  Only recently did I discover his involvement in a small bit of Americana that involved Mr. Davidson, the State Department, a $50 Georgia O'Keeffe painting, and President Truman moonlighting as an art critic.

After World War II the State Department decided to sponsor a traveling art show.  They determined to gather a collection of American works of art and send them on tour through South America and Europe to build cultural goodwill.  In 1946 the Department engaged Leroy Davidson, an energetic man in his late 30s who had been an assistant director of the Walker Art Museum in Minneapolis, to select and gather two collections of American art.

For the first collection, Mr. Davidson persuaded American corporations with art collections to lend some of their significant pieces to the State Department.  These were mainly pieces that, by American standards, would be considered old masters: pieces done by artists, often deceased, with established reputations.  Most of their names are recognizable today.

Mr. Davidson wanted the second collection to be more interesting.  He persuaded the State Department to let him buy, rather than borrow or rent, the artworks for the second show, and the government gave him about $50,000 toward the task.  These are in the dollars of 1946; think about $500,000 or so in today's dollars.

And Mr. Davidson bought art, descending on Gallery Row in Manhattan's 57th Street with the State Department's checkbook.  He ultimately bought 117 pieces of modern American art, organized them, and gave the show a title with two meanings: "Advancing American Art."

The names of most of the artists in this show mean nothing today to anyone except the art expert or the serious collector, but the show did include works by Georgia O'Keeffe, Ben Shahn, and John Marin, all still important names in the history of art.  Most of the works were from the Social Realism school, depictions of the grittier side of American life made in the 1930s and 1940s.  (Keep in mind that the artists of this period had the Great Depression and the War to use as raw material.)  Artists such as Gregorio Prestopino, Pietro Lazzari, Philip Evergood, Douglas Brown, Reginald Marsh, and William Gropper, all more significant then than they are today, were represented in the show, mainly with pictures of city scenes.  These were not urbanely cool "Metropolis"-like pictures of American progress and modernization, but of things like gas stations and subway riders.  And the show headed for the ruined capitals of Europe.

While the show was in Paris, the American Artists Professional League complained to Congress that "Advancing American Art" didn't represent American art and were full of European radicalism.  The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee complained to the Secretary of State, and the show (which had made it to Prague but not to its other scheduled stops) was cut short and brought home.  Harry Truman himself ridiculed the show, and said of one of the paintings, "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot."

This left the Secretary of State, George Marshall, with a problem.  Who would rid him of these troublesome paintings?  (He apparently rejected the idea of using them to start a gallery in the State Department.)  After some thought, the department offered the paintings for sale by written bid.  Private persons who won an item had to pay the bid amount, but qualifying colleges were given the right to buy works at 5% of their fair value, if their bids were accepted.  That is, if a school made the high bid of (say) $1000 for a work, the school would have to pay only $50,which is what one lucky school paid for the Georgia O'Keeffe work.  The sale wasn't advertised, and attracted very few bidders -- some colleges, and a few individuals who found out about the sale by chance or from knowing someone involved with the exhibition.

The collection was dispersed.  Oklahoma University and Auburn University each got about a third of the works, and an assortment of institutions and individuals got the rest.  Altogether the State Department received about $5000 for the works that it had paid $50,000 to acquire only two years earlier.  Leroy Davidson left the State Department and entered the academic world, becoming a professor at a prominent Southern college, where he built his expertise and reputation on the art of India. 

I'm sorry now that I didn't know to ask Mr. Davidson about this interesting episode in his life.  But now I think I know -- I certainly suspect -- how Mr. Davidson's Laquedem cousin, who didn't have spare money to buy art with, came to own works by Gregorio Prestopino, Pietro Lazzari, Philip Evergood, Douglas Brown, and Reginald Marsh.  William Gropper's painting escaped the cousin's net.

The brighter side of Erik Sten winning re-election

One good thing about Erik Sten winning outright and keeping Ginny Burdick from a November runoff is that he's saved my friends at the Mausoleum Club another $150,000.

An election-day thought from Tom Paxton

Folksinger Tom Paxton offered this thought some years ago, which is taken from his song "We All Sound The Same," and seems apposite for this election day afternoon:

The candidates come and the candidates go, and we all sound the same.
"I'm Eenie," "I'm Meenie," "I'm Miney," "I'm Moe," and we all sound the same.
We're having another election this year
We're hiring the halls and we're pouring the beer,
We're telling you just what you all want to hear,
And we all sound the same.

I heard Mr. Paxton sing this song when he came to Portland many years ago, and it got a big laugh from the audience.  After he sang it he said that in (I think) Ann Arbor, Michigan, the city council candidates were together on a stage for a joint appearance, and after they all spoke they joined hands and sang this song, something that made Mr. Paxton think that perhaps they had all missed his point.

Endorsements IV: The governor's race

I'm tempted to recommend voting against all of the candidates, on the ground that wanting to be the governor of Oregon is proof that you're not qualified to do the job.  I imagine that it's fun to be the governor of a state that has a stable tax base, a sound school system, a large discretionary budget, and a productive legislature.  Governor Kulongoski hasn't enjoyed any of these things, and the official state airplane and the Brewer's Festival aren't enough to make up for having no discretionary money and an invertebrate legislature.  (Problem for the student: using the taxonomic system of Linnaeus, classify the Oregon Legislature; simpler problem: identify the Legislature as animal, vegetable, or mineral.  Show your work.)

I don't see the Governor's first term as one of accomplishment, but then the state gave him few tools with which to accomplish anything.  On balance I think he did about as well as could be expected and I'm inclined to recommend giving him a second term.  His Democratic challengers have not made a convincing case for replacing him.

On the Republican side, the race is more interesting.  Kevin Mannix and Ron Saxton lead the field.  I may have misunderstood the Oregonian's recent series on Mr. Mannix's campaign finances, but as far as I can tell he makes much of his living running for office, but not winning.  He does offer a clear alternative to Governor Kulongoski, but it's not an alternative that makes sense to me.  Although Mr. Mannix would not put it this way, I sense that he supports less money for government and a dysfunctional legislature.  A deity with a sense of humor would put him in the governor's chair and then give him a legislature composed entirely of Kate Brown.

Mr. Saxton and I don't see eye to eye on social issues, but I think he has the capacity and character to work with the next legislature, whether it be controlled by the D's or the R's.  I recommend that Republicans nominate Mr. Saxton to oppose the governor.  I can't picture Mr. Mannix enjoying the same genial relationship with the opposition party.  The other strong candidate in the race, State Senator Jason Atkinson, is worth a Republican's vote also, but for the fact that if he wins, he would have to leave the Legislature, which would be a significant loss to that body.

Educating homeless children

Chuck Currie asked if I would mention his recent post on educating homeless children in Multnomah County, and I'm pleased to do so.  Here's how I summarize his argument:  (1)  Federal law prohibits local districts from using federal dollars to educate homeless children in separate schools.  (2)  Multnomah County pays the Community Transitional School (CTS) to provide 10 slots in its school for homeless children.  (3)  CTS is a worthy project run by well-meaning people, but it doesn't offer the range of activities that the regular public schools do.  (4)  It's time to upgrade the quality of education for the homeless.  (5)  Therefore the City of Portland, Multnomah County, and the school district should work on how to move homeless children to the regular schools.

This brought to mind how we get to work on problems.  The first reaction is to (a) do nothing.  This is followed by (b) doing something that is not all that great, but is better than doing nothing.  This may in turn be followed by (c) doing something that is pretty good.  I read Mr. Currie to say that when CTS was founded, it was a (c) solution: "something that is pretty good," but now it is a (b) solution: "something that is not all that great, but is better than nothing."  And (if I may again cast his ideas in my words) he's calling on the local governments to work together to come up with a (c) solution: putting homeless children in the regular public schools.  (I should add that CTS must be run efficiently; the contract with CTS, linked to from Mr. Currie's post, pays CTS $5200 per student slot per year, which is about what the state pays for basic school support.  Out of this, CTS provides the school and also transportation to and from the school.)

The difficulty with getting homeless children into school is that they are, well, homeless.  They live in cars, basements, shelters, or odd corners, and they move around a lot, meaning that their neighborhood school in October probably won't be their neighborhood school in April.  If they have to move from one school to another three times a year as their parents change neighborhoods then their education will be choppy at best and nonexistent at worst.  Also, the school that was convenient in October might be three bus rides away in April, a disincentive to staying enrolled there.

The real question I have about CTS and homeless children, though, isn't Mr. Currie's question.  He asks how we can move homeless children from special schools to the regular schools.  My question is, if CTS is serving only 10 homeless children at a time with the county funds, how are we serving the other 1800 homeless children in the district?  I don't know, but Chuck Currie has inspired me to try to find out.

Endorsements III: More of Multnomah County

The race for Position No. 2 on the Multnomah County Commission has a good group of candidates in Jeff Cogen, Lew Frederick, Gary Hansen, and Xander Patterson.  It's too bad that they're all running for the same seat.   I support Jeff Cogen, mainly because he asked me first, but I think the county will be well-served by whomever is elected.

The race for County Auditor has two contestants.  Lavonne Griffin-Valade, a senior management auditor at the county, is running against Steve March, a former senior management auditor at the county.  Both have decent records and would serve well as the county auditor.  I give the nod to Ms. Griffin-Valade, who is endorsed by the current auditor, Suzanne Flynn.

Then there's the race for County Sheriff.  Incumbent Bernie Giusto faces a challenge from Donald DuPay, a social worker and former Portland police detective.  Sheriff Giusto has an impressive record of public service.  However, as the print media have delicately put it, he has an unfortunate history of entangling his personal affairs with his official duties.  I can't recommend voting to re-elect him, although he'll likely win.  The question is whether a protest vote is more effective if cast for Mr. DuPay, whose name is on the ballot but whose platform doesn't inspire me with confidence, or for Paul Van Orden, who is running a write-in campaign for the job. 

Anyone on the ballot will get some votes.  I think that write-in votes get more attention (do you recall Jerry Brown's write-in campaign in Oregon in 1976?) and, for the same reasons advanced by Willamette Week, I recommend writing in Paul Van Orden.

The City of Portland's stealth real estate transfer tax

From time to time well-meaning people suggest that the City of Portland, or Multnomah County, adopt a real estate transfer tax of maybe 1 or 2 percent and use the proceeds to fund low-income housing.

Portland already has a real estate transfer tax on some transactions, as the Trusty Accountant told me in late March.  It's collected through the City-County business license fee and taxes the profits that real estate investors make on the sale of some kinds of income property.

Several years ago I joined the ranks of the rentier class, in a modest way, when I became a part-owner of an apartment house.  (My involvement was so modest that my proportionate share of the complex is about equal to one bedroom, three knobs on one of the stoves, and one-quarter of one parking space.)  We sold the building to people more foolish than we, and gathered together the numbers for our final tax return and business license return.  Some rent came in, some expenses went out. 

The number representing our net income for the year, and on which the City and County figure their tax bite, was about $1 million higher than I expected, a difference that even the richest of the investors (not, alas, Isaac) noticed.  Why?  The City and County, says the Trusty Accountant, include capital gain from the sale of business property (such as apartment buildings) as business income, on which the tax is levied.  For some of the investors there's a little insult thrown in, because they bought their interest in the property through tax-deferred exchanges, and part of the gain that the City is taxing them on was made from investments in real estate outside Multnomah County. 

Endorsements II - a footnote

The Oregonian recently complained, if I recall correctly, that Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman spent time on the Children's Initiative, a set of programs to help the very young, because taking care of children isn't within the City's purview.  (At the local level, most social programs belong to the county, not to the city.)  Yet the Oregonian, if I recall rightly, also wants the City Council to help fund schools.

My recollection is that most customers of the Portland Public Schools are children.  The last school I visited was positively crawling with children.  I don't understand the Whimperer's apparent belief that the City of Portland need to support and fund the people who administer the schools where children spend their day, but not the children themselves.  It's a silly argument, and whoever wrote the editorial should be embarrassed.