WW welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less.   LET'S RIDE In response to your article on May 31, entitled "Wake Up!," I'm always amazed at the level of bigotry Willamette Week displays toward members of the Portland Police Bureau. It is always amusing to see such an example of poor journalism. Being a coworker of several individuals cited in your article, I have personal knowledge of the hard work done by these individuals on a daily basis. I also know that they would not use force when it was not justified. It amazes me that you write such a one-sided article based on statements from individuals without any corroboration to support their statements. Did you by chance even see any police reports, witness statements, internal affairs statements, etc.? Were these individuals charged with crimes? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that they lied about the circumstances under which they were injured? Someone charged with a crime would certainly have a motive for making such claims. Your examples certainly leave a lot to the imagination of the reader. "Irresponsibly" left the scene of an accident? The police gave chase? Translated: She committed a hit and run, tried to elude police and probably resisted arrest. However, I do admire the creative writing. In another example, you cited an officer for making the "Rogaine" remark. Did you not take offense to his calling the officer an "asshole"? The lawyer is an officer of the court and is expected to act in a professional manner. Why is there such astonishment that complaints against officers are investigated by other police officers? Complaints against numerous professions are investigated by members of that profession, not by untrained individuals with personal hostilities toward members of that profession. Doctors investigate complaints against doctors, lawyers are investigated by the state bar, even construction contractors have a board of review. While this may be perceived as covering for our own, it simply allows individuals with the proper training and background to conduct the investigation. Not those with a personal agenda against the police. If your paper truly had any integrity, you would take the opportunity to ride with some officers and learn more about the profession that you seem to enjoy publishing demeaning articles about. I doubt that you will do this. You wouldn't want to cloud your prejudiced minds with the facts. John Hurlman Portland Police Bureau, East Precinct Nick Budnick responds: A few points: 1) The story stated clearly that the majority of police officers do a tough job well and without major problems. 2) As Officer Hurlman presumably knows, police reports for cases in which internal affairs complaints have been filed are not made available to the public. The reports in the Williams case could be reviewed because a lawsuit was filed. 3)The Rogaine remark was used as an example of a trivial complaint. 4) In Oregon, as Hurlman notes, some professions are allowed to regulate themselves. However, in many cases citizens are able to review the complaints. This is true for engineers, construction companies and lawyers; disciplinary actions against doctors are also made public. None of this is the case with individual police officers. COPS' SELF-DISCIPLINE In response to Nick Budnick's cover story on the Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee ["Wake Up," WW, May 31, 2000], I'd like to clarify something. There has been a lot of confusion about the difference between the finding in police misconduct cases and the discipline. Budnick seems to think that the PAC 2000 campaign--and Mayor Katz--want PIIAC to have final say on disciplinary matters, rather than the merits of the complaints. None of the proposals--NAACP's, PAC-2000's, Copwatch's, or the mayor's--would take the disciplinary decisions away from the police chief. But some of them would give the board the final word on the finding. A good analogy would be a jury (PIIAC) finding on the guilt or innocence of a defendant, and a judge (the chief) handing down the sentence. As indicated by the two cases in which the chief refused to accept recommendations by City Council, PIIAC needs to be given the final say as to the merits of the complaints. To be fair, PIIAC did the best it could in those cases, but their efforts were subverted because the chief disagreed with them--and his boss, Police Commissioner Katz, backed him up both times. Thanks for putting the spotlight on PIIAC. With a little more depth and accuracy, and less sensationalism, you may help Port-land get a review board that works. Dan Handelman Portland Copwatch Nick Budnick responds: Dan Handelman has a good point. The article did not make clear enough that the effort to reform PIIAC does not propose to give that body final say on disciplinary sanctions but would leave it in the hands of the police chief. Mayor Vera Katz said she would consider such a reform but not one that gave PIIAC final say on discipline. I regret any confusion my article caused. FOLLOW THE MONEYPIT The question is not simply "Who will stop this man?" [WW, June 7, 2000]. The more important question, and the one which WW did not even bother to posit, is "Why does this man need to be stopped?" I will not be voting for any of the fatally flawed Sizemore initiatives. How-ever, your story failed to address how Bill Sizemore, an underachieving individual with a dubious past, is able to wield such strength in Oregon. The article stated "...it isn't likely Sizemore would have the impact he does on the state without the few well-placed monied men who have been supporting his measures for the past six years." Pardon me for stating the obvious, but Sizemore's power was happily given to him by the local and state governments of Oregon. While it is clearly tempting and facile to demonize Sizemore, the truth is that scores of Oregonians simply cannot continue to sit back and watch astronomical percentages of their paychecks being sucked into the governmental black hole. Federal taxes are a burden, to be sure, but Uncle Sam ain't got nothing on Uncle John. Oregon taxpayers of all earning levels have been repeatedly bent over and asked to receive a tax bill that is wildly unfair. A serious discussion about the insane property taxes and outrageous state income tax may some day yield compromises fair for everyone. Until then, these measures pass because the majority of voters suffer from "battered-taxpayer syndrome," a malady causing the weary citizen to react at the polls in favor of anything which they believe might lower their tax liability. Oregon politicians face a hell of a fight come November, and they have no one to blame it on but themselves. Robin DesCamp Southwest Patton Court READ MY LIPS: NO NET TAXES Two mistakes were prominent in the Q&A interview with Washington County Commissioner Delna Jones ("Internet Tax Master: Delna Jones," by Nigel Jaquiss, May 24, 2000). First, Commissioner Jones incorrectly identified activists from Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy. The activists of Oregon CSE, more than 10,000, have been involved in the debate about Internet taxation for more than three years. At CSE we recruit, educate, train and mobilize volunteer activists to fight for less government, lower taxes and more freedom. Our activists are not professional lobbyists or high-priced experts. They are, however, passionate. That commissioner Jones was bombarded by citizens interested in promoting an Internet free from special or discriminatory taxes should be a positive sign. However, her words point to a second and much more injurious mistake. Commissioner Jones is as guilty as the federal policymakers whom she derided as out of touch. It is true, the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce faced difficult issues. Foremost among them, for our membership, is the ability of an out-of-state tax collector to reach into the pocketbooks of Oregon consumers. Unfortunately, the lesson of the interview with Delna Jones is that consumers must become more, not less, involved in the policymaking process. As long as officials continue to complain about correspondence from their constituents, they will continue to miss the point. Commissioner Jones only saw a deluge of correspondence that "shut down" her e-mail. Next time, policymakers might see that Oregon consumers have no interest in new taxes-- online or otherwise. Russ Walker Director, Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy, Salem MR. ED TALKS BACK With apologies to Mark Twain, I must say your report on the death of school reform [May 24, 2000] was greatly exaggerated. School reform is very much alive in Oregon. Take a look at how student achievement has increased since the reform act passed in 1991. SAT, state test scores and other academic indicators are all up. For example, 70 percent of Oregon third graders achieved the state math standards in 1999 compared to 35 percent in 1991. We want to build on that success. That's why we asked the State Board of Education to recognize students for achieving high standards in each subject area rather than the current all-or-nothing requirement. It makes sense to reward students for what they can do as they progress instead of penalizing them for what they can't do. We invite your readers to check the Oregon Department of Education's Web page (www.ode.state.or.us) to review the proposed changes for their positive effect. We also invite them to give us their thoughts. We are listening. Stan Bunn Superintendent of Public Instruction, Oregon Department of Education THOSE DARN WHITE LIBERALS I am not writing in response to Callahan's cartoon [WW, April 26, 2000]. He will get his in time. I am writing in response to the pseudo-intellectual, Thomas Jefferson-loving, guilty white liberals who vomit their opinions as freely as their racial privilege allows. When it comes to understanding how black people experience racism, I have no right to speak. I may only listen. But when it comes to the aforedescribed white charlatans who attempt to make vanish the whippings and lynchings of racism with slight of mouth, I have a few kind words: Shut the fuck up. Black people can use that powerful, pre-bellum word to bring it back under their control, just as the gay and lesbian community has re-enfranchised the word 'queer.' And, yes, there already is the "Coalition of White Men," but it hides under the guise of the business hegemony of white men who constantly discriminate against blacks in the workplace and must be monitored by a system of affirmative action to break the cycle of institutionalized poverty. Globally, income distribution is intrinsically racist, in this era of neo-colonialism. Unequal power relations are a domestic and international reality. Finally, in order to be racist you must have socio-economic power. A black person cannot be racist (the term is absurd) to a white person, only prejudiced. To all those credulous "land of equal opportunity" white liberals, I hope I see you on the street. Of course, only to speak of politics. Of course. Jonquil Hunter-Morton Southwest Broadway     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published May 10, 2000