A man named Patrick Cashman has a bone to pick with Portland’s World Naked Bike Ride, the 9,000-rider strong annual event which will embark from Laurelhurst Park on June 29th.
Cashman has been on a personal crusade since late last year to hold ride organizers accountable to the letter of the law and to force the City of Portland to reveal the ride’s route.
“This information was developed in coordination with a small group of private citizens who are allowed to know this information while other private citizens are denied it.”
— Patrick Cashman
Back in November, Cashman penned an op-ed in The Oregonian urging others to join his demands to know the route of the popular ride. Cashman has also posted his concerns on Nextdoor. Between January and April of this year, he filed six separate public records requests with the City of Portland.
So far, he’s been denied each time.
The City has acknowledged that they’ve worked with Naked Bike Ride organizers, but they say a desire for public safety makes details of the route exempt from public records laws.
In the past five years the ride has averaged about 9,000 riders. It’s a massive undertaking that has long outgrown its spontaneous, unsanctioned beginnings (the first time BikePortland covered the ride in 2005 there were only 170 riders). For years now, ride organizers have worked in partnership with the City of Portland (including the Portland Police Bureau) to make sure the ride is as smooth and safe as possible. That collaboration has led to what Cashman feels is unfair treatment.
Cashman has a history of this type of activism. While living in Vermont in February 2018 he took issue with a public high school that flew a Black Lives Matter flag. Now in Portland, Cashman has accused our city government of playing favorites. In a letter (PDF) dated April 26th, 2019, in response to the City of Portland’s denials to his public records requests, Cashman wrote, “I contend that as this information was developed in coordination with a small group of private citizens who are allowed to know this information while other private citizens are denied it, the city is also engaged in selective disclosure.”
After a few people told me about Cashman, I contacted him to learn more about his concerns. Here’s our email exchange:
5/17/19
Hi Mr. Cashman,
I’ve heard about your inquiries to the DA’s office about the World Naked Bike Ride route.
I’ve covered the event for many years and I’m curious to know more about your feelings about it. Can you help me understand what your concern is? Are you simply curious about the route and don’t like that it’s kept a secret?
Thanks for your time.
—
Jonathan
Advertisement
5/17/19
Mr. Maus,
Good afternoon.
I’m not a fan of the event (I think it’s rude to one’s neighbors) but that just my personal opinion and has no bearing on the rights of participants to do it. My major concern is with how the city handles it. There are three problems:
1. It’s an equal protection problem. The city must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. For this event the city is choosing to waive their administrative rules and notification requirements for a moving event permit for this particular applicant and event. I don’t know their motivation to provide this special treatment, but such low level corruption to favor preferred groups or people over others degrades trust in our democratic institutions and further encourages such corruption.
2. It’s a public records problem. The state public records laws are very clear; public documents belong to the public, the default condition is they are to be released on request unless a specific exemption is claimed and justified. The city has not claimed any exemption. Instead they have employees brazenly coordinating how to evade public records requirements because, (back to point 1), for some reason this group is getting very special treatment. That not only degrades trust and violates public records law, but it sets a precedent and is a giant warning sign that the city does not take its obligation to its citizens seriously. Additionally, one has to wonder; if they are going through this much effort over this minor event, what else are they up to to keep actual consequential documents out of the public’s hands?
3. The event, based on what I read on the WNBR page, will also be a violation of the judgment against the City in Gathright v. City of Portland*. The WNBR page states they will have event security enforcing a “no photography” rule and removing anyone who makes people feel unsafe. As ordered by the judge in Gathright the organizers had to sign a statement of understanding to affirm they understand the only rules in public parks are those imposed by lawful ordinance, event organizers don’t get to make their own rules. And park rules fully support non-commercial photography by whoever wants to do it. [*Note: Cashman pasted the relevant portion of the judgment in his email; but I’ve left it out for brevity’s sake.]
Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks for asking
Patrick
5/17/19
Thank you for the responses Patrick.
I’m in an interesting position because I’m a participant, colleague/friend of many of the organizers over the years, and a journalist who prefers to keep a healthy distance when reporting about these events. That’s why your perspective on the event and actions around the route being made public are interesting to me.
Not sure if anyone has explained this to you yet, but the route is kept secret out of respect for the organizers who have spent years forging a productive working relationship with the Portland Police Bureau in order to keep this ride welcoming and safe for as many people as possible. The ride itself is unique: It’s free and put on by grassroots volunteers, it’s massive (and a major traffic consideration, hence the relationship with the PPB), and of course many of the people are naked.
While I understand your points about the letter of the law, many things our city and citizens do are in a grey area. That is, people come together to figure out a way to do something that might not fit perfectly inside the law, but that allows people to do what they want to do and gives the Police a feeling that public safety is assured. Take speeding in cars as an example. Police have a policy of not ticketing people until they go about 9-11 mph over the posted speed limit. That’s just one example.
Organizers of the Naked Bike Ride do not want people to target the participants in any way. They want to limit the amount of people who show up just to catcall, leer, and take photographs of nude strangers. While you may have no interest in doing any of those things, many people do. And because of that it seems reasonable to keep the location and route secret and to discourage photography at the start venue.
We can agree to disagree about this of course. I’m just trying to give you more context for why this event is treated like it is. Now keep in mind, I’m not on the inside. I have never played a role in organizing the event. If you’re interested, I could introduce you to one of the organizers.
Thanks again for your time. Have a nice weekend.
— Jonathan
5/18/19
Jonathan,
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. For me it is a matter of priority and from my perspective open, equitable, and accountable government comes before most anything else. Have a great weekend.
Patrick.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I propose we get as many riders as possible to write “Hi Pat!” on their naked backsides.
Pat needs a new hobby. Like organizing something that doesn’t allow anyone to have fun.
Another ***insult deleted by moderator*** trying to police others behavior instead of living his own life. Sad.
you just got your behavior policed by others.
Dear Patrick,
I’m interested in your preeminent concern with open, equitable, and accountable government, and how that’s the motivation for you. Accordingly, please provide evidence of all the other public records withholding determinations that you’ve challenged. Obviously you know the City makes disclosure exemption determinations on a regular basis. I ask you to share where you’ve challenged all of them, because surely you’re not targeting this particular event because it’s “rude.” Our shared interest in open and accountable government demands it.
Regards,
Gary
Mister Cashman also seems to have some problems with nonprofit media:
https://vtdigger.org/2012/12/16/schubart/
Both people make some pretty good arguments. I’m a disinterested party though. The WNBR is basically like Black Friday – something crowds of people swear is amazing.
Not only good arguments from both sides, but arguments made in a civil and respectful way. Thanks to Jonathan and Patrick for reminding us that we can agree to disagree without vilifying those who have opinions that differ from ours – especially when we’re talking about something as insignificant as a single night bike ride.
I am sure after the event the city will provide documents about the route as he requests.
Dear Patrick,
Jonathan does make a good point regarding selective enforcement of the speed limit by Portland Police. I don’t know how many deaths have occurred as a result of the WNBR (zero?) but we all concur death occurs with regularity as a result of speeding motorists. As you have the public interest so much at heart I’m looking forward to reading of you insisting the city ticket ALL speeding motorists, regardless of how much over the limit they’re driving . This would include driving 21mph in a 20mph zone, right? The law is the law, right? Anything less is the selective enforcement so repugnant to you. Please let us know how this goes. Otherwise we might tend to think this is actually a ruse and you’re lying through your teeth about your motivations here. This might lead us to ask you to leave Portland and return to VT and continue your noble public service there. I bet your flag performance was really appreciated there, eh? They’d welcome you back with open arms. A question though; why Vermont then Portland? Wouldn’t you be happier in Texas, or Alabama? So many more kindred spirits there.
I have no opinion about whether Cashman’s claims are valid, but transparency is a fundamental component of democracy, and it seems clear to me that the city should follow the law, whatever that is, and can only offer exemptions where legally permitted.
This strikes me as a relatively straightforward legal question.
Exactly. Patrick Cashman is absolutely right about the law, and this is a perfect example of a governmental entity trying to obfuscate an issue in an attempt to be able to continue its unlawful behavior. The content of Cashman’s character is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. A reasonable stance from biking advocates would be to support the World Naked Bike Ride, but recognize that citizens do have the right file public records requests. While the filing of such requests does not require any specific justification, it is worth noting that it is easy to imagine a scenario why someone would like to know the path of this popular ride. For example, for religious reasons someone may want to ensure that they maintain a certain distance from the riders.
In this situation, the law is what you can get a judge to agree to, and if you can’t then your (Cashman or anyone else) particular reading of the law doesn’t mean very much.
Agree with you, but he’s no Bella Abzug.
Since it’s legal to ride naked you could happen across a naked rider at any time you’re in Oregon so I don’t think you can get an exemption for that.
There are exemptions in the law, but Cashman wrote the city has not claimed any, so I am not sure on what basis they are denying his request. Regardless, conflicts like this are why we have courts, and none of these issues seems intractable, so this will likely get resolved one way or the other.
The other issues, like a private group using private security to exclude people from the park, also seem relatively straightforward. If someone is forced to leave, they can make a legal claim against either the security firm or those who hired them, and the legality of the practice will get resolved. I am confident those providing security know what they can and cannot do, and will toe the line.
Transparency and personal safety are often at odds, and governments sometimes do give the latter priority over the former. You’ll get laughed out of city hall if you request the addresses of safe houses for battered women and children. The same is true if you request names of peace officers involved in undercover operations. The same is true if you ask the Sheriff’s office what high-tech gear it has on loan from, e.g, the US Coast Guard. In a world where government transparency trumped all else, those data would be public.
It seems to me like PPB has made an ad hoc decision in this case that rider safety and full transparency are likewise in some tension and that safety can be greatly enhanced by some (temporary) obfuscation. Perhaps some make the assessment that such is not the case for the WNBR, but I don’t think anyone can make the case that transparency is always and ever the guiding virtue in this sort of decision.
There are legal exemptions written to the law that permit the city to withhold certain classes of information from public disclosure. The relevant question is which of those exemptions is the city claiming, and is it being properly applied?
As I noted below the city has a problem responding to requests in the timely manner it’s supposed to and citing the specific exemptions. Patrick is convinced it’s a conspiracy though. Based on my limited understanding of the law this exemption would probably apply.
Information submitted to a public body in confidence and not otherwise required by law to be submitted, where such information should reasonably be considered confidential, the public body has obliged itself in good faith not to disclose the information, and when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/192.355
Thank you for posting the law. It provides 42 exemptions to the general rule that information must be disclosed, as well as a number of sub-exemptions. All the city has to do is pick one from that list and it should be good. If none are applicable, it should turn over the requested information.
#4 is a useful catch-all that any bureaucrat could use (or misuse):
“Information submitted to a public body in confidence and not otherwise required by law to be submitted, where such information should reasonably be considered confidential, the public body has obliged itself in good faith not to disclose the information, and when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.”
That took a while of scrolling through that Oregonian comment thread but this is the reason I ultimately got out of Patrick for disliking this ride. In his own words.
“Public records laws are critical to the functioning of our government. They establish and maintain the relationship between us and our governance; specifically that our government is answerable to its citizens. Public records laws are important, the naked bike ride is…not.
It is a “protest” only to the degree necessary to legally enable the participants to remove their clothes in public without consequence. It is a horrendously rude imposition on the community as bicyclists demand exclusive use of our roads for them to cruise through town (imagine the outcry if drivers demanded a day when they got exclusive use of the 319 miles of bike lanes in Portland), and to top it off they don’t bother to comply with the city’s written notification requirements, or for that matter the mere courtesy of telling people when you will be closing down their roads and which roads. But much more importantly, our city government doesn’t make them.
Now it’s possible that this one event is the only one that gets this singularly special treatment. In that case it is a canary in the coal mine; it provides warning that petty functionaries in city government are treating state laws as optional, so best put a stop to it before that same loosey-goosey approach is applied to something important. Or, it’s the tip of the iceberg. As in; if they will ignore or mangle existing laws for such a petty event, imagine what shenanigans they get up to when it is something of consequence.”
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2018/12/readers-respond-naked-bike-ride-is-an-easy-target.html?__vfz=medium%3Dcomment_share_email%7Csharer_uuid%3D00000000-0000-4000-8000-0a01287eec5a#vf-4845700018042
Ooops didn’t mean for that to be a reply. My bad.
The city closes bike lanes, sidewalks, and pedestrian crossings for convenience of others with regularity. For example, converting the bike lane to a parking lane at the rhododendron garden on Mother’s Day weekend, closing the bike lane for construction access, closing sidewalks for construction. The construction closures can be for days, weeks or even months. Sometimes they’re adjusted “on the fly” when things change; sometimes they are extremely well planned out depending on the complexity.
The city closes streets to general traffic for all kinds of events including parades, runs, access to sporting events, etc.
It seems to me that the city does a pretty good job of picking the appropriate amount and timing of notification with the extent of the closure and the amount of inconvenience.
Patrick’s complaint about notification is a red herring.
It’s a pretty good clue that he thinks roads are equivalent to bike lanes, ie., meant for use by a specific type of vehicle.
It’s funny how everyone on BikePortland is an expert on the laws, until they aren’t.
Pat said that ” The state public records laws are very clear; public documents belong to the public, the default condition is they are to be released on request unless a specific exemption is claimed and justified.”
This comment shows his bias again the event itself is driving his passion. The city did provide the valid exemption related to public safety. Police keep a lot of information confidential due to public safety or because an investigation is ongoing. This is the same thing. Providing the information negatively impacts public safety (like the groping of women in Old Town) and the city has provided it as the reason they are exempting this from being a normal public record.
How is one individual citizen’s bias or lack thereof of any relevance when it comes to a point of the law?
It doesn’t! Turns out I grabbed the wrong sentence. Thanks for catching that. I meant to grab this one “The city has not claimed any exemption.”
Him not wanting to hear the exemption is different than the city not providing an exemption. Here, they are saying that public safety is the exemption. So, the idea that they haven’t claimed and exemption doesn’t mesh with the facts. Ignoring an answer that one doesn’t like and going further by saying there wasn’t event one claimed is typically the result of bias and/or a desire for confirmation bias.
Simple solution! Move back to the other coast and take about 250,000 folks with you.
So, let me understand. You want the individual freedom to ride through town, naked on your bike, flaunting public nudity laws, on a route that the city won’t reveal “for your protection”, and you want to dictate who can choose to live here?
Rainbike; let me spell it out for you. One of those comments is serious, the other facetious. Can you make out which is which? Are you seriously trying to compare them?
Thanx for speling that out. im not god at speling.
Which public nudity laws? Can you point to specifics?
Maybe you’re new to Oregon and it’s constitutional freedom of speech laws.
I understand his points at their “face” for public information access, IF I had not been aware of how dangerous and wild west the WNBR got in 2009 due to the bystanders becoming active spectators…from seeing it. Perhaps Jonthan should send him the links to that fracas. [Plus the interesting evolution of the WNBR originally organized by rebellious cyclists who had little daily regard for the PPB’s 2000’s tactics for “enforcing” “complete streets” and “vision zero” (back when they would push us off our bikes onto the sidewalks out of the bike lanes during critical mass rides etc.) ] As a long time fan of the spirit of the WNBR…I hope its organizers are mindful of how the WNBR’s size may be effecting the larger community…if there is truth to one of his complaints…based on an independent assessment.
Prediction: Patrick will attempt to file a lawsuit against the city in hopes of a cash settlement.
Sounds like Patrick should have been named Richard instead…
Name calling just because he has a view you disagree with?
No, but thanks for trying to be like Richard… Has more to do with his long term personality traits versus this one personal opinion.
Worrying about the degradation in trust of democratic institutions is almost always a red herring in place of something else more nefarious. I suspect the Patrick is some kind of front m an for Joey Gibson and Patriot Prayer or the Proud boys who would like to know the route so they could plan some kind of brawl with the participants. They figure such an altercation would give them the media attention their twisted brains desire.
Joey Gibson is a Trump supporter. If Patrick swings that way, how does that mesh with this statement?
“open, equitable, and accountable government comes before most anything else”
We already know that Trump is not a supporter of any of those things.
Trump is a huge (HUGE, the biggest) supporter of those things, when he’s not the president.
I’m amused by the amount of projection going on about Mr Cashman’s character or supposed political views. Even if he was a Trump supporter, his points are valid. Dismissing them just because you believe he is an “other” is not a very liberal thing to do, is it?
Seems to me the police should be required to disclose arrangements with protesters (compare arrangements at issue with Patriot Prayer), but the interest of open government do not require disclosure *before* an event. “Hey, PPB, what are the deployment plans for that upcoming Patriot Prayer demo?”
Cashman isn’t asking for police deployment plans; he’s asking where the demonstration will be held and what route it will take.
I’d love to know so I can avoid it.
I’m pretty sure the route will not interfere with his commute to Beaverton.
I tried engaging Patrick significantly last year and again this year in what I believe is his post on r/portland releasing the starting point. I’ve yet to get Patrick to cite the city policy or ordinance that doesn’t allow it to make exceptions to its permit requirements. He noted how the permit form says that the route is required but there’s no rules that I’ve been able to find that say the issuing body of a permit can’t make exceptions to the requirements. If he can’t provide that policy the rest of his complaints are kind of moot. He’s provided no evidence of another group that has been denied exceptions for similar reasons so there’s no discrimination. And if the city didn’t receive the route information with the permit it’s not public record so he has no right to it.
Last year he also seemed quite fixated on this idea of a conspiracy between PPB and the organizers as well. He was convinced they purposefully ignored his records request and when I pointed out to him that the city in general and especially the PPB has a bad record for responding to such requests and it’s likely not personal he ignored that information and continued to push his conspiracy theory.
Finally as others have noted I also found that he’s just trying to use the excuse of equal treatment to disrupt this event and even try to cancel it. It’s not even going to be in his neighborhood this year and he’s still trying to disrupt it.
PPB sure is busy…conspiring with the Proud Boys AND the WNBR. Perhaps the two can be combined.
His arguments are sort of good and he almost makes a good point. The problem is he doesn’t actually want “good government.” It’s just his best most compelling argument he can use to try to destroy something he doesn’t like. He conflates open secrecy with “corruption” which is a serious logical lapse. Open secrets happen all the time in a bunch of different scenarios (like bids for government contracts). Here, the city is openly saying that this event is going to be allowed to happen and that the police are going to be around to help with the route and they are working with the event organizers to help pick the route and staff it. The only part that is secret is the specific route from the starting point. He has ALL the information he needs to empower him to petition the government for redress, or to seek the specific records from years past to make other objections to how it is run, how the police respond to route selection options, etc., etc. He says he wants open, equitable, and accountable government. But he doesn’t. Looks like he just wants to use government rules to empower him to silence and exclude others. If he was stymied in his efforts to secretly negotiate a route for his own super popular event with 10,000+ people, that would be inequitable. But this? It’s just regular open, equitable, and accountable government … nakedly riding its bike down the street on a beautiful summer night with 10,000+ friends.
Why he wants it is irrelevant. The fact is unless there is an exemption, it needs to be turned over. They aren’t citing any exemption. Just because you think he has “all the information he needs” is also irrelevant and textbook gov’t BS stonewalling.
I think Cashman has some very strong arguments. Playing favorites in ignoring the law is a slippery slope and a foundation of governmental discrimination.
When a civil entity ignores prescribed regulations someone in authority likely is being paid off.
I would strongly support WNBR if Chief Outlaw were to show up along the route sporting a paintball gun.
Is Full Transparency the same as Full Monty? If it is, then there will be plenty of both at the WNBR!
The guy is a crank and is pursuing his crank hobby horse of “naked people having fun=bad and offensive!” in a perfectly legitimate way. I suppose we should celebrate that our so-called democracy still functions well enough for lone cranks to pursue their grievances through the relevant governing bodies.
Definitely do not get on this guy’s lawn though. 😉
Denigrating the minority opinion, calling someone a crank, isn’t a healthy pursuit for our democracy. He’s got a few good points about government accountability.
Nonsense rainbike. Calling a spade a spade (or a crank a crank) is actually essential to a healthy democracy… and we could use a lot more of it. There are not always “fine people on both sides”. If he were honest about his motives it might be easier to give his viewpoint the respect you say it deserves. On the other hand if we were honest his angle would be seen for what it is… the ruse would be up and he’d have no case. He knows that better than you I’m sure.
It doesn’t really matter what some city official thinks of his reasons for making his request — they’ve either got to claim an exemption or divulge the material. The law doesn’t have an exemption for cranks or other unpopular kinds of people.
Is that a square taper or an octolink?
I find it refreshing that Portland is still able to even have a discussion about open government, even if it isn’t perfect or even very transparent. In my community on the East Coast, the city recently admitted it funds a secret paramilitary organization used for riot control in other cities; it funds parking garages and a $1 Billion bypass even though there’s no demand for either; the city regularly funds projects that city councilors regularly benefit from; voter turnout at the last city election was 11% of registered voters; the city has closed budget hearings for a city budget larger than Portland’s even with half as many people; and at any public hearing, we are lucky if 5 people show up to speak.
Enjoy democracy while you can Portland – it’s pretty much dead everywhere else.
I didn’t intend to suggest that he didn’t have legitimate points about transparency, I’m saying that his motivations make him a crank. I’m pretty sure there’s a large number of actually meaningful issues over which to grind an ax — to me, the fact that he chose this one makes him a crank. But hey, more power to him, the lone crank is an American archetype.
Julian Assange is a bit of a crank also.
Sometimes cranks are needed to ensure government is operating fairly.
I was wondering why I suddenly got a bunch of anonymous LinkedIn views.
A few points:
The pdf letter linked in Jonathan’s piece above is my appeal to the Multnomah County DDA for a public records order. A few excerpts:
Email from Deputy Ombudsman, Tony Green, dtd 4/26: “Yes, PBOT is intentionally not collecting the information in order to avoid having to turn it over as part of a public records request. But as I explain below, I think they have made a persuasive case as to why.”
Encl (6) – Email from Deputy Ombudsman, Tony Green, dtd 4/26: “There are many exemptions to disclosing public records. PBOT isn’t asserting one, however.”
Yes, there are exemptions to Oregon Public Records Law; 550 of them as a matter of fact (a fact everyone should be appalled by). You can basically get an exemption by going to Salem and buying any legislator a ham sandwich. Yet none of them apply and the City has not claimed any. See https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2019/05/opinion-efforts-to-hide-government-records-never-stop.html
No, there is no grey area in public records law. It’s binary; by default any public document is releasable on request UNLESS the agency claims a specific exemption written in law. In the absence of such a claim, the document is to be disclosed. From the ODOJ Public Order in re: Burke / Mail Tribune: “A public body that declines to disclose public records bears the burden of establishing that the records are exempt from disclosure. The Oregon Court of Appeals has made it clear that there is an overall presumption in favor of disclosure and that the exemptions from disclosure are to be narrowly construed.”
When presented with the statement “We believe this event is unsafe if we obey state laws and apply the common set of administrative rules we apply to everyone else”, some petty functionary in PPB decided that the appropriate response was to waive the rules and evade public law. Why they did this; because they knew the guys, or they liked their cause, or they preferred their color of skin, is irrelevant. It isn’t acceptable.
For context I would also offer that in addition to my commentary objecting to flying the flag of a private corporation over a public school and “pay to play” nonprofit news outlets that use their favorable tax status to drive local newspapers (like the Times Argus) out of business, I also have written several commentaries on the abomination that is the traditional Town Meeting (https://vtdigger.org/2014/02/27/patrick-cashman-traditional-town-meeting-dilutes-suffrage-absentee-voters/) and in defense of Vermont Common Trust doctrine (https://www.vt-world.com/berlin-pond-belongs-to-all-vermonters.html).
Thanks for the use of the forum. Enjoy the weather, I’m going gardening.
I’d say the US is more of a ‘corporation’ than BLM.
What did you plant?
Japanese variegated Arelia. We have a dark and mycky corner in the back and im trying to get something to grow there. We’ll see how this does
Thanks for the tip. My girlfriend’s yard had a similar situation and I’ve not yet found a solution.
Looks like he already has a hobby. There goes my theory.
I’m just doing what the lady at 7Dees told me to, no guarantees.
This whole thread is bonkers, and this guy is the worst.
As Judge LaBarre noted eloquently in 2008, the World Naked Bike Ride is protected expression under the Oregon Constitution. It isn’t corruption for the City to sidestep a request or withhold records that would enable harassment of the people who choose to participate. https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2008/11/judge_throws_out_charges_again.html
Which exemption to open records law is related to the WNBR’s status as protected expression?
Sounds like an argument the Proud Bits could make.
Hi John,
PBOT admits to deliberately not writing the route down, so as to avoid public record requests. If they only talk about it then they can claim “no responsive documents” which is a trump card for municipal governments in Oregon as the DDA cannot compel them to prove a negative. As for BLM Vermont it is a corporation and trademark registered with the VT SoS to Ebony Nyoni of Winooski, see https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwiHyLGHgcLiAhXHjp4KHYVcA5AQzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sevendaysvt.com%2Fvermont%2Fwinooski-candidate-ebony-nyoni-has-competition-and-legal-trouble%2FContent%3Foid%3D12923194&psig=AOvVaw1jV-RhhDdlVGeLvTIbtVnB&ust=1559262891738310
The WNBR is absolutely protected expression under OR law, which is why I don’t like it but my personal opinion has no bearing on the participants’ right to do it. That doesn’t mean it automatically qualifies for any of the (550!!!) exemptions from disclosure.
I appreciate your passion for bureaucracy. If the city did all the required bureaucratic steps to utilize one of the many exemptions (such as those related to public safety), would you be more satisfied? For me, things that create less bureaucracy with similar outcomes is always preferred. Perhaps for you, you like to see public resources used in different ways than I prefer.
I’ll Show Up,
What “public safety” exemption are you referring to?
With 500+ exceptions, it’s hard to believe that there are not any related to public safety. You have much more passion for legal research than I do. I’m just happy they don’t give out the route info so that there is less concern about people interested in it for all the wrong reasons being less able to cause safety issues.
You’re not going on the ride, you know when it is, you know where it starts so know the general area to avoid if you’re worried about delaying your driving trip that one eve of the year. What is the positive purpose of exposing (pun intended) the route before the police and ride organizers feel is a safe time to share it.
I am frankly turned off by your insistence on material that you don’t really need, even if it increases the chance that someone will get hurt, so that you can prove your philosophical point about how open records need to be before you’re happy. Please don’t give me some absolutist answer about your philosophical position. Your position is not absolute in my world, but decreasing the chance of bad things happening to people during this event is a high value.
Public records belong to public unless the public agency claims an exemption, period. The law is absolutist, as it should be. Whether you and yours may or may not benefit in this case because some petty functionary is making decisions they are not entitled to make about what citizens do or do not get to see, democracy as a whole suffers regardless when you endorse public servants ignoring clear laws passed by our elected representatives.
I’ll,
What public safety exemption are you referring to?
Patrick cite the city ordinance or policy that says they are not allowed to make exceptions to their permit requirements. In the end you have no evidence that they can’t make an exception or that that have denied others such exceptions. So the route isn’t required for the permit or public record. And as others have pointed out what other rules the city isn’t enforcing are you advocating for? Have you gotten a ticket for going 1 mph over the speed limit recently? As you demonstrated last year this isn’t about law and order it’s your avenue to disrupt an event you don’t like.
At most you have made clear the city isn’t great at following records request laws something I pointed out to you last year. Something that has nothing to do with this event. An event btw that was part of the city for 12 years when you moved to 2.5 years ago.
Rather than make an exception, the city should just change the rules so that a route isn’t required of anyone.
Why would they need to do that HK? Most events want their route known. The only issue with making exceptions to a requirement is if it’s done unfairly. Do you have an example of another event that was denied a permit because they didn’t provide their route information while citing safety concerns?
You seem to have this backward like Patrick does. Everyone is available to apply for a permit without providing specific route information and the city is allowed to make a determination if there is a good reason for not meeting that requirement and issue the permit anyway.
I don’t have anything backwards. I want one set of rules that everyone knows and can follow. I don’t have a strong opinion about what those rules should be, and would support changing them if the current set wasn’t working for some events.
If this is already the case, then Cashman will not make further headway in his quest, and there is no need for more hand wringing.
I don’t understand. Are there two sets of rules? As I’ve stated anyone can fill out an event permit without the route information and the city can decide if they want to wave that requirement. Two sets of rules would suggest that some people have not been issued a permit while leaving out this information and citing the same concern. Do you have an example of that? Because I really don’t understand why you think there are two sets of rules.
The rule is generally a route is required unless you can provide a reasonable explanation for why it shouldn’t be provided and made public.
Uhhh, no, not even a little bit. The PBOT Streets and Sidewalks Administrative Regulations are available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/301824&ved=2ahUKEwikksr15sPiAhVZCTQIHeKlCVEQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2QSKmX-w7T7tlyV-lwb6f_. Those rules implement the direction provided by ordinance at PCC 7.22. Changes to those admin regulations require review by the streets and sidewalks advisory committee and a public comment period. The PBOT director can implement an emergency deviation but only for up to 180 days and it must be in writing.
Hey thank you so much I really appreciate it this is what I’ve been asking you for and it helps me understand where your’e coming from. I’m not seeing the part of the rules that say a large parade event has a required route or that it must be provided to the public. The route has to be reviewed and the organize are responsible for informing the participants about the route.
Are you considering this a large athletic event? Maybe that is where the confusion is coming from.
Idle,
Educating you is your responsibility, not mine. Plus I figured given enough rope you would likely make a wholly unsupported claim of “fact” like the one above and reveal yourself as an untrustworthy source
I’m not sure how my claim referencing your document is unsupported but I’m fine to just leave it at that. I reviewed the document that you say supports your claim that the route must be provided and made public and I’ve found nothing to support that claim. I’ll invite others review it as well to form their own opinion and wish a good day.
>>> The rule is generally a route is required unless you can provide a reasonable explanation for why it shouldn’t be provided and made public. <<<
Is that "rule" actually written anywhere?
Out of curiosity, how long have you lived here?
What is the waiting time before one can become involved in the community or activism?
Dear anonymous internet person,
Can you point out any state law that gives municipal employees the authority to make public records decisions? I get that it has been going on for a while, but that doesn’t make it right.
By the way, how about you use your name next time?
That’s a pretty typical response to what I got last year. Instead of answering my very specific question you ignored it and asked your own. I already acknowledged the city isn’t great at records requests and have pointed out that has nothing to do with this event. Will you please cite the policy that says exceptions can’t be made for permit requirements? My anonymity has nothing to do with your inability to do so.
Idle,
I agree, your anonymity is no reflection on me.
As for your demand that I provide a very specific reference written in a particular way which only yourself can judge in order to win your support, I’m afraid I’m going to have to live without your support. The administrative rules for a PBOT moving event permit require a route. The instructions for the PBOT Moving Event permit application require a route. State laws require the release of any document created or used by a public agency UNLESS an exemption has been claimed. No exemption has been claimed. Do with that as you will.
Well it’s been 6 months Patrick and you’ve not been able to provide any policy or ordinance that says the city is not allowed to make exceptions in its permitting process. I have to assume you have no interest in having an honest conversation about this. You’ve repeatedly evaded or ignored my very simple questions. In the end all you’ve exposed is exactly what I pointed out to you 6 months ago that the city isn’t very good about responding to records requests. This has nothing to do with the WNBR other then your dislike of it.
If anyone else would like to chime in and provide some actual information about policies or ordinance that the permit was issued in violation of I would be happy to discuss that. As far as I’ve been able to determine though I could literally write my name on a permit and the city could approve it even though I failed to meet all of the written requirements. If they approved that permit the only public record would be my name.
casual observer…always confident, sometimes wrong but:
IB…u seem to be talking past PC in a rush to drop the mic….seems obvious that a permitting statute that can be ignored at will isn’t much of a statute…and PC acknowledges that exceptions are allowed if an exemption is claimed…but there are no exemptions being claimed here, hence his complaint….not really invested in the event, but demanding that PC prove that the city can’t randomly ignore its own statues at will seems an odd hill to plant the flag on
Hey thanks for the response. I apologize if it seemed like I’m just trying to win an argument and drop the mic. This conversation with Patrick started back in November and went on for weeks and I was never been able to get a direct response to that one simple question until just now in a thread above.
I do want to point out that you’re conflating two things when you say “exceptions are allowed if an exemption is claimed”. The statue Patrick is referring to regarding exemptions is for denial of public records requests. What I’m asking about is for any policy, ordinance or rule that says a permit requirement cannot be waived by the city. I’ve looked but have been unable to find a policy that says this. So the city can issue a permit that doesn’t fulfill all the requirements written on it (in this case the route). If a public records request is made for that permit the city cannot provide the route information because it wasn’t part of the permit and is therefore not public record.
As it turns out based on the response he received below from the DA the city has not created a written public record of the route so there is not one to provide. If the record doesn’t exist an exemption does not need to be claimed. For some reason he still thinks this is some conspiracy theory and collusion with the event organizers. As best as I can tell there is no evidence of that and the city would waive the same requirement for other event permits if given similar reasons for not providing it.
I agree with the logic that if a record does not exist, it can’t be released, but does it seem even remotely plausible to you that PBOT and PPB could have discussed, planned, and permitted a route without writing it down anywhere?
“does it seem even remotely plausible to you that PBOT and PPB could have discussed, planned, and permitted a route without writing it down anywhere?”
Yes and in fact that is what they have stated to Patrick and the Multanomah DA. It’s very easy to imagine ride organizers bringing their own materials to discuss the route but the City employees taking specific steps not to create a public record so they can maintain the routes secrecy for their stated reasons of keeping the size of the event smaller, the safety of the participants and the safety of their officers.
Why doesn’t it seem plausible to you?
It seems implausible because route planning and related logistics often require many people, and PPB and PBOT are both bureaucratic organizations that like to write stuff down. It’s not impossible, of course, but seems unlikely that no one would take notes and the only record of the route would be in the hands of the organizer.
Regardless, if this is a legitimate way of keeping information from the public, then the city should just codify the practice and avoid all the drama.
Do you think police should write tickets to people speeding at 56 MPH in a 55 MPH limit?
I’ll repeat my question from above that you ignored, Patrick. If an exemption is claimed, would that satisfy you?
signed,
Internet Person
Sure, because it can be appealed to DDA on the strict basis of that claimed exemption. If you’ll note, what I wrote in my appeal (which had to be against a “constructive denial” because the City never claimed an exemption) that I wanted from the DDA was to: “Issue a public records order to the City of Portland directing they immediately provide the route in its current form in response to my request or cite an actual exemption.” That’s it. Basically; please make the City of Portland obey the law.
It appears that is a bit too much for many people here.
What other areas are you demanding this information? Why are you choosing to do it with this event, in particular?
Your absolutism continues unabated, as I expected. The world is not an absolute place. I resent your using the limited resources of public servants in this way you are. You have not acknowledged the point that the law as written and as applied are not the same thing. The example Jonathan gave about speed limits is a clear one where it creates worse accidents that kill people. Your request is petty. You want to stir the pot and put an ax in the gears. The evidence is strong for that. You said you’d like the exemption to be issued so you can appeal it. Doesn’t matter what the exemption is, no exemption even for public safety rises to a level that can be legitimate. You have an absolute view about how this law is applied. You have a motivation to apply that absolutism to an event that you will not be impacted by so you can take people’s energy to fight against you crusade.
You’ve done enough homework that it’s clear you moved here with an intent to campaign on this. You clearly did that in Vermont. Vermonters are lucky that they don’t have to waste their time and money on your petty demands.
I use the word petty intentionally because that’s the word you use to discredit the people you see as your enemies. As a colonel, in the military or police, you are used to seeing people hurt and may have even ordered people to hurt other people. I see the paramount importance of both fields. Thank you for what you did in your profession.
But, that profession can make one a bit more callous about bodily injury to other people. In this exchange, you have not shown any care for the safety of people you are trying to affect. You have only shown interest in your petty concern that you demand information that you don’t actually need.
I’ll repeat what I said above that you’re not going on the ride, you know when it is, you know where it starts so know the general area to avoid if you’re worried about delaying your driving trip that one eve of the year. There is no value in your work other than to satisfy your absolutist view of how public taxpayer resources should be used.
I’m afraid i don’t get what relevance my service has to do with anything, but for the sake of correctness it is actually LtCol (0302) in the Marine Corps. Though on second thought maybe it does have relevance; I’ve seen countries paralyzed by the banal corruption of petty bureaucrats. Those who use their limited authority to hook up their friends, their tribe, their political party. Functionaries who use their public trust to put drag on those they dislike, be it ethnic minority or rival tribe, and lend impetus to those they like, support, or are seeking compensation from by deciding ” the letter of the law applies to those guys, but these guys, these guys are my friends so no silly rules”. We have laws to prevent such corruption, but that only works if people pay attention and insist laws be applied equally. Maybe you don’t know what actual corruption looks like so let me help you out; it looks like this.
Corruption!
I’m sorry, I can’t get worked up over this one when there are much bigger fish to fry. Did you know that Russia meddled in our Presidential election, and the victor has been busy dismantling protections against further meddling?? What purpose might that serve? Hmmmm.
The relevance about your career is that I’m trying to makes heads or tails about your lack of concern for the safety of those you are trying to affect. I’m still curious why this event.
Calling this corruption on a scale you talk about is a level of conspiracy thinking that points out the extremism of your cause.
That’s your choice Dan. But big corruption doesn’t appear fully grown out of nowhere, it grows out of an environment that tolerates the little everyday corruptions like these. So maybe try caring about more than one thing at a time.
Russia attacked our elections and is being invited to do so again because you can’t get info on where the naked people will be. Got it.
You are putting corruption in cities and countries with military involvement for important reasons on footing with your desire for a map about an event? That’s extreme.
I was mentioning your service because I was trying to figure out why you show no interest in public safety. It has literally been ignored by you at every turn here. It’s just boggles me that you haven’t answered about why you think putting people in harms way is less important than your desire to see a map that has little relevance to your life.
Are you saying you believe this event is unsafe if the city obeys state laws and applies the common set of administrative rules they apply to everyone else?
I’m getting weary of being the only one here answering questions.
No I am not saying that. I am saying that you are asking for information that affects public safety. I’m also saying that I’m glad the city is doing what it should to protect public safety.
As a military man, I’m sure you’ve encountered situations where releasing information raises safety risk. This is the case here. But, you won’t answer my questions about the trade offs with public safety. Or why you’re targeting this particular map over the various other opportunities you may weaponize in your crusade. Or, if you think there are any legitimate exemptions. Or, why we should see you as a credible actor when you’ve already admitted your plan is to prosecute every agency and staff member you can think of no matter what public safety exemption or even operational reality exist.
You’ve only repeated your mantra about your extreme view on public documents. I’ve heard your statements. Your goal is to waste many hours of time and legal fees so you can prove a point. And you don’t seem to care if your sacred point results in injury or sexual assault. If you did, I think you would have answered my multiple postings with the same questions. They should be easy answers for you. But they’re not and so you are not answering.
My “extreme” views on public documents consist of the City should abide by state law. That’s it. As for the safety of the event it is certainly not obligatory and the organizers bear the responsibility to plan an event that is both safe and in compliance with the law and common regulations. That’s it. So other than impinging on a privilege you enjoy, what is extreme about that?
By the wY, in regards to pursuing misconduct charges against those city employees who coordinated their actions to evade public record laws; hell yeah. Those who abuse their public trust to benefit themselves and their friends need to be held accountable. Every. Single. Time.
Clearly it’s not you obligation.
I believe you take your obligations seriously. Further, I think that if public safety were your obligation, you would be an amazing asset to anyplace you were serving.
What I find extreme is that you feel so strongly that you have no obligation to consider how your actions affect the safety of others that you’re putting your need to prove a point above the safety of your fellow Portlanders. You just talked about the people you will affect with complete disregard for our common obligation as members of society to be mindful of how our actions impact the safety of those we share society with.
’ll,
Are you under the impression this event is obligatory? The organizers are obligated to comply with law and ordinances AND provide participants a safe event. If they can’t do that, that is an issue to take up with them. The responsibility does not rest with everyone else to waive ordinances and our commonly agreed upon laws to accomodate their desires.
Once again avoiding the central message I just conveyed. I will not get past the fact that you do not see any obligation to think about how your choices affect the safety of others. You want to use these people’s safety as a pawn to prove a point. They have a constitutional right to protest in this manner. You have a constitutional right to use whatever legal processes you want.
The difference is that their constitutionally protected action does not put anyone’s safety at risk. While the right you’re choosing to exercise has real potential to lead to injury and sexual assault. I just can not see a moral equivalency there. But I do have moral objections to your disregard for how your actions affect the safety of others. Not your obligation, indeed.
Good evening, Patrick. I hope you don’t knock this particular windmill down.
It sounds like it is bad rules that are putting people in danger.
I’ll,
Of course there is no moral equivalency; you are endorsing corruption and cronyism because you benefit from it. I would offer a balancing clause to the prior sentence in order to make it symmetrical but it seems better to let your position stand alone. Own it, I’ll.
My real concern would be a legal challenge to the ride itself. Luckily it’s protected by the Second Amendment, unless someone successfully argues that it really is just a right to bare arms and not anything else.
I’d love to see a concealed weapon on the WNBR. Not just from the aesthetic standpoint but also the reaction of pretty much every other rider.
How exactly do you propose concealing it?
Uh…. actually, don’t answer that.
I have a lot of confidence in the creative abilities of the naked riders to come up with a solution.
But if it was concealed, nobody would see it.
Reading through the comments and links there is one thought that comes to mind: Where was Patrick Cashman during the comment period for the I-5 Rose Quarter project?
If you want to talk about a government organization hiding/withholding documents and coming up with false pretenses for just about every element they held a clinic. If your concern is equal protection (something along the lines of valuing the lives of middle schoolers the same as literally anyone else) this would seem to be straight-forward.
Having someone with the dogged determination to help uncover documents for that project would have been useful and a public service. Alas focusing on a bike ride seems to have so little upside as to be a waste of everyone’s time. Sure, he can state that personal opinions of the event have no bearing on the decision to repeatedly go after records associated with the event, however the appearance of this episode does not look quite so unbiased.
tldr; I get the desire for transparency, perhaps in the future find a target that could actually benefit people for generations to come rather than exposing them to harm (as has been stated elsewhere).
David,
I’ll prioritize my own activities, you prioritize yours. From my perspective case government transparency is government transparency, regardless of the specific topic under discussion. And as can be seen by the admission by city employees of a coordinated effort to evade public records laws (From the City Ombudsman’s Office; “Yes, PBOT is intentionally not collecting the information in order to avoid having to turn it over as part of a public records request.” ) would never have occurred if the topic under discussion were one of consequence. But because this event is not of consequence they feel safe in brazenly admitting to activities that they keep secret and in the shadows for larger topics.
But hey, enough about me, what have you done in the name of government transparency?
I often hear my liberal friends say you can be can be upset about more than one thing at a time but choose to focus on the one most important to you.
Why does it matter what his motivations are?
Idle,
I also provided my appeal, city response, and DDA order on Nextdoor, which then with my permission was provided to Jonathan, which started all this. PBOT and PPB claim that since they aren’t writing down in any emails, notes, etc any discussions about the route therefore there is no public record. The City has admitted they are employing this ruse to evade public records laws. As of 2x days ago PPB is still maintaining they don’t have written discussions Emails, maps, notes, etc about a route for an event happening in less than a month. The DDA has to take this laughably unlikely claim at face value because by precedent they can’t compel the city to prove it. That’s the whole “evading public records laws” thing I mentioned. The City is doing this because, based on some unknown qualification or characteristic, they have decided this group or individuals are entitled to special privileges and treatment that others are not. That’s the whole “equal protection” problem I brought up. Welcome aboard.
What other areas are you demanding this information?
Why are you choosing to do it with this event, in particular?
Why have you shown no care for the potential harm to people that your mission would create?
Do you believe in exemptions for any reason?
How can you be a credible player if you plan to appeal an exemption process that hasn’t even had a finding?
Umm, because none of the exemptions actually apply? You are welcome to check for yourself, ODOJ has a searchable database (because Oregon has a ridiculous number of them). Yet the law still requires that the agency either provide the rewuested public document or cite an exemption which is then subject to appeal to the DDA. That’s it, no other choices. No “we don’t wanna” exemption, no “wouldn’t be prudent” exemption, no “but we like THESE guys” exemption. And that’s as it should be in an equitable, accountable, and transparent eemocracy otherwise you are empowering bureaucrats to decide “we don’t wanna” provide those financial disclosures, “wouldn’t be prudent” to release that body cam footage, and “but we like THESE guys” so we won’t release FDA test results. Just how much are you willing to give away just so can ride your bike naked? It seems like a lot.
Colonel, I quoted adopted city ordinance that the police are sworn to uphold.
Individual moves to a new place and observes a cultural experience that they don’t understand. Because they are petty and monstrously entitled, they lash out.
SD,
Yes, to steal from Southwest Airlines: I feel free to move about the country. And I am unaware of any probationary requirement prior to becoming involved in whatever community I find myself. But let’s talk about your use of the term “entitled”. In this case I have been repeatedly and at some effort to myself been attempting to get my local government employees to provide a public record they are required by law to provide. I have been repeatedly rebuffed without the procedure (exemption) required by state law. On the other side we have a group of people who the local government officials have exempted from the administrative rules applied to everyone else. A group who benefit from and receive special treatment from those same local government officials whether they ask for it or not, that special treatment being simply assumed. So a group who, through their membership in a specific social group, receive and expect certain unearned benefits. There’s a term for that.
Mr. Cashman,
I think everyone here believes in open and transparent government. Some of us might find the WNBR to be childish, stupid or vulgar (or all three). However, at least for me (I don’t want to speak for anyone else) what sets my teeth on edge about this is that it seems to be more about a puritanical vendetta than a concern about open governance. What’s next? Should women have to wear certain garbs to be modest? Maybe I got it wrong, though. So let me ask this question: if the City or the WNBR say to themselves,”You know what, Mr. Cashman is right,” and release a route, is that end of it? Are you onto something else?
If you want a real windmill to tilt against, might I suggest one? The utter and complete hostility of the Portland Parks toward urban mountain biking. Its got everything: personal relationships between Parks officials and (anti-mountain bike) lobbyists, city commissioners over-riding a public process midstream (i.e. Riverview), rich and politically connected individuals making donations to prevent access to Forest Park, the Parks department intentionally using false data to back up a rotten policy. And in the long run, this subject would pay more dividends for open governance, fair access, best practices and Parks’ own money issues than caring about a bunch of people that think riding a bike sans clothing is “edgy” or “cool” or “protesting”.
Cyclekrieg,
Thanks for the clear, defined, and finite question. Regrettably my answer would have to be “No”. It isn’t enough for the City to suddenly say “Oh okay, you got us, we’ll follow the law from now on”. Those who chose to misuse their public trust and offices to favor preferred groups and / or organized and participated in a collective effort to evade state laws need to be held accountable otherwise corruption like this will just keep on happening. So regardless of how this turns out my intention is to pursue misconduct investigations against the PPB event Sgt, the event coordinator at PBOT, and in an ideal world get the state bar to take a look into the actions of the City Attorney’s office.
Once again, no sign of care for the people who may be harmed by your crusade. And again no care for the amount of public resources you’re wasting and plan to continue to waste event more. Pretty disappointing. Also, why are you choosing this event in particular?
The fault lies with the city for not creating a set of rules that can be clearly followed and produce the desired result. When they need to resort to tactics such as not writing anything down, it’s clear there is a problem.
If they fixed the rules, and followed them, Cashman would have to find another project.
Here’s the great thing I’ll; while I have explained my motives repeatedly (equitable, accountable and transparent government) my motives are actually irrelevant. The law is really quite clear on that fact. As for wasting anyone’s time if that is your concern then consider how much time city employees have spent evading the laws enacted by our elected representatives. Again; just how much of your power as a citizen are you willing to trade away just to ride your bike naked?
How many people getting hurt would make you think that your crusade may be better spent elsewhere.
Why are you focusing on this event?
I’ll,
Are you under the impression this event is obligatory? The organizers are obligated to comply with law and ordinances AND provide participants a safe event. If they can’t do that, that is an issue to take up with them. The responsibility does not rest with everyone else to waive ordinances to accomodate their desires.
Before I answer yet another one of your questions, I have to ask again for the 10th time, why are you picking this map as your target? Colonel, you’re clearly on the war path and very likely moved here with intent to create the situation you seek. Why is this the battle you are fighting. There are much more important targets than a map about a naked protest.
Now, your answer. No, the event is not obligatory. The event organizers do not hold the responsibility for public safety as you suggest. Rather, the police have a clear mission and duty under oath to protect public safety. While it is not an obligatory event, it is obligatory that the police protect public safety as it relates to demonstrations. City policy says “The Portland Police Bureau recognizes that the City of Portland has a tradition of free speech and assembly. It is the responsibility and priority of the Portland Police Bureau not to unduly impede the exercise of First Amendment rights and to provide for the safe and lawful expression of speech, while also maintaining the public safety, peace and order. A police response that impedes otherwise protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.”
Releasing the information you seek increases safety risk for thousands of people. They are performing their duty.
Let’s try this.
– I “picked” this target because when I read last year that the route wasn’t released I thought “That can’t be right, permits are public records”. I use to work in municipal government in Vermont and if an exempt employee tried these shenanigans with public records they would have neen sitting on the curb with their belongings in a cardboard box by sundown. I’ve stuck with it because the more I dug the more appalled I was. It is blatant, indefensible cronyism, and BECAUSE the event is largely inconsequential city employees tend not to be as guarded about their abuses of their public trust in support of it. Which is how I get things like brazen admissions of a coordinated effort to evade state law such as in the above.
– The event, the WNBR, doesn’t matter. What matters is holding public officials accountable when they demonstrate bias, cronyism, and corruption. Which officials have demonstrated to the benefit of WNBR.
– What is important to you is not important to me. If you believe there are more important topics, feel free to do something about it instead of trying to coerce me into doing it for you.
– You should probably review the oath the police, fire, every deputy, every appointed staff member and every commission member is required to attest: “I, (name), do solemnly affirm I will support the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Oregon, the Charter of the City of Portland and its laws; I will faithfully, honestly and ethically perform my duties as (office) during my continuance therein.”
You could focus all this attention on, say, our police killing, injuring, abusing unarmed people. Now there is something to get exercised about.
Where to ogle naked people in late June on public streets… not sure that is so consequential as you seem to think it is.
Oh good, another stranger with input for my job jar
Sorry, my dance card is full trying to get the city to provide equal protection of the law and comply with state law, but feel free to jump on that other thing you were talking about yourself.
If you really think this is about ogling, you have utterly missed the point.
I directly quoted city law. You don’t like that fact so you choose to ignore it. But, it’s one of the many reasons you will not get far. Have fun wasting my tax dollars.
I think the ODOT environmental assessment information that has been withheld from the public is a great example of a huge public expenditure that is not allowing the details to be aired. You don’t choose this rich target and will not say why. You could come to the same conclusion you just stated about many things. But, you’ve chosen to take a course that results in increased threat to those exercising their constitutional rights and make false assumptions about what will happen there because you think the human body is rude.
I’m don’t with this back and forth. You have a message and it doesn’t matter if people get hurt. That’s not your obligation. You don’t see an obligation as a citizen to make sure your actions don’t increase the likelihood of hurting other people. This makes you someone that I hope loses over and over again. You aren’t adding to public discourse. You’re adding to public discord.
Actually you quoted policy, I quoted law. There is a difference.
“If you really think this is about ogling…”
I have no idea what it is about. I know (can read) what Mr. Cashman asserts it is about, but people regularly claim to be motivated by agreeable-sounding principles, all the while their real motivations are quite different and/or less sanguine. In other words just because he says something doesn’t mean I have to take that as gospel.
Maybe it isn’t about ogling, but some people get weird when public nudity comes to town.
Some of us recall a sergeant named Timothy who just wanted to hold the government accountable.
Wrong. I quoted local law as adopted by city council. They have legislative authority and used it to pass the city ordinance that I reference.
Okay, I’m always willing to admit when I am wrong. What ordinance?
4 years later still waiting…
NIMBY type tells newcomer how to assimilate into the local culture.
I doubt I’d agree with Mr. Cashman on much else, but I would like to know the route of the World Naked Bike Ride so I can avoid it. I get around pretty much entirely on my bike and I’ve run into the ride route twice by accident in the past. If you’re not into that sort of thing, t can be creepy–especially as a woman riding alone at night. You get yelled at (festively) to take off your clothes by participants and (creepily) by onlookers. I just want to mind my own business and get home, onobserved and unremarked.
Exactly that. While I think the event is kind of dumb, it causes me no tangible harm. I want to avoid the route so it’s not an inconvenience to me and so that I am not an inconvenience to them.
Totally understandable desires. But does that desire trump the very real safety reasons for not providing the route to the public in advance? I’m not saying I have the definitive answer to that question, but I think it’s a pretty solid argument that it doesn’t.
The obvious solution is to write a public safety exemption into the rules, if one is not there already. Let the city withhold any information they claim jeopardizes public safety, if that’s the policy we want.
You can hear it from blocks away!
I’m having a hard time understanding the anguish over chancing upon the WNBR unawares, being swept up in its uncouth wake.
Hi 9Watts–for me it’s that the environment created by the event can be threatening if you haven’t opted in. Like it or not, this is a country where public nudity is still a very loaded proposition. Its presence effects people’s behavior, sometimes negatively.
Also, regarding it being easy to avoid, one of the years I got caught in the event, it was coming down Division, which I had to cross to get where I was going–not exactly an out of the way, easily-avoidable location.
I’m sorry you have found it unpleasant, that our experiences of it have been so different. As a participant and more often a spectator I have found the WNBR to be one of the most joyful, giddy, harmlessly unhinged, hard-to-describe events I’ve ever encountered.
If I knew in advance there was going to be potential traffic problems, I’d avoid the area.
Running into something unawares often leads to frustration and negative outcomes.
He posted this story on r/portland and a reddit user found the DA’s response.I find it interesting he left out this important public record as it relates to his claims about the City not doing its job correctly. They seem to pretty clearly address his concerns and note that the route does not exist as a written public record so it cannot be provided for a request.
https://www.mcda.us/index.php/about-the-da/public-records-request/
Correct link https://www.mcda.us/wp-content/files_mf/15572692381917Order.pdf
Woops, wrong thread.
Patrick Cashman May 30, 2019 at 11:40 am
Idle,
I also provided my appeal, city response, and DDA order on Nextdoor, which then with my permission was provided to Jonathan, which started all this. PBOT and PPB claim that since they aren’t writing down in any emails, notes, etc any discussions about the route therefore there is no public record. The City has admitted they are employing this ruse to evade public records laws. As of 2x days ago PPB is still maintaining they don’t have written discussions Emails, maps, notes, etc about a route for an event happening in less than a month. The DDA has to take this laughably unlikely claim at face value because by precedent they can’t compel the city to prove it. That’s the whole “evading public records laws” thing I mentioned. The City is doing this because, based on some unknown qualification or characteristic, they have decided this group or individuals are entitled to special privileges and treatment that others are not. That’s the whole “equal protection” problem I brought up. Welcome aboard.
The protest is a legal exercise of rights upheld repeatedly by the OR Supreme Court. WNBR coordinates with PBOT as a courtesy only. That coordination ensures the event disrupts the city as little as possible – one of the reasons the city police allow for ‘corking’ during Critical Mass events is that traffic flow is much better, on average, because of it.
Not announcing the route is a safety measure for the riders, and is a condition the organizers likely insisted on before coordination began. Public safety is a legitimate exemption. Cashman knows full well that requiring the route be made public would have a chilling effect on rider participation, the same way doxxing is used by the alt-right to scare off counter-protesters. Unfortunately, even if he wins, he loses, and so does the city at large; WNBR will be forced to stop coordinating with the city to ensure the event goes smoothly, and instead it will be an unsanctioned (but entirely legal) event that will disrupt traffic flows far worse than now.
Cashman is also entirely disingenuous about his motivations, which are only relevant because he keeps bringing them up. If he truly wanted fair and universal application of public records laws, there are a ton of much more incriminating collisions he should be digging into with the same fervor. Given his ire for BLM, though, I don’t really expect he’ll be asking PPB to turn over records regarding collusion with the Proud Boys any time soon.
How about we stay on topic George?
Instead of focusing on the infinite possibilities of what WNBR “could” do, stick to what they are doing; filing an incomplete moving event permit application, requesting exclusive use of City assets and personnel, ignoring neighborhood notification requirements, promising to impose their own rules in public parks, etc.
Instead of focusing on what the City “could” do, stick to what they are doing: designating a preferred group based on some unknown characteristic or attribute, waiving common administrative and regulations in violation of City Ordinance for that preferred group, coordinating efforts among city employees to evade public records laws, etc.
Fundamentally people get in a twist when corruption and privilege to their benefit is pointed out to them. As with this you have to expect the plaintive wails of “ But, but, but…this is DIFFERENT!!!”
It isn’t. It’s just garden variety corruption and cronyism in action.
HK,
If you look to the enclosures in my appeal Jonathan included as a pdf at the top, WNBRs permit application, such as it is, is there.
Idle please provide an example of WNBR notifying a neighborhood, last year is fine. I’m growing a little weary of being the only one providing references
Girls just want to have fun.
So do non-binaries, straights, etc.! Something we can all agree upon.
On a slightly different but related topic, does anyone happen to know if WNBR is permitted as a “large parade”, and, if so, whether they provide the advance notice required in the statute?
>>> Sponsors of athletic and large parade events with a closed course, shall notify residential complexes, neighborhood groups, businesses and churches which will be affected by the event closures. The notification shall be made not more than fourteen (14) days before, and not less than six (6) days prior to the event date. The notification shall be in writing <<<
That is a very clear requirement, and would seem to undermine the plan to keep the route secret.
Dang it, sorry, wrong thread again.
Patrick Cashman May 30, 2019 at 12:57 pm
HK,
If you look to the enclosures in my appeal Jonathan included as a pdf at the top, WNBRs permit application, such as it is, is there.
Yes they do provide notification to the affected neighborhoods. However that notification does not have to include the route. The language of the permit very clearly suggests various forms of notifications but does not require a specific one. From the public notification strategies and resources section: “Outlined below are a few ways that you can let the public know about your event”
“A few ways that you can” does not equal “required”.
Patrick Cashman May 30, 2019 at 1:59 pm
Idle please provide an example of WNBR notifying a neighborhood, last year is fine. I’m growing a little weary of being the only one providing references.
Sure thing. I did last year but I can do it again. It was in the Oregonian, in the Portland Mercury, in the Willamette Week, it was posted on social media, it was covered by local television news media. The whole city was notified which will include all the affected neighborhoods. You like to cite the permit a lot as a rule some of their notification suggestions are online communities and television. Literally the Portland Mercury is listed.
I didn’t see this before I posted my other message, but you raise an interesting question: Can one fulfill one’s obligation to notify specific parties by notifying everybody in the whole city that they may be impacted, without mentioning who? That has a certain “skirt the rules” logic that appeals to me.
From the administrative rules this all started from:
Section 14. Exceptions
The City has the authority to modify the application process when an exceptional need exists.
The city has made two cases why they are changing the process safety and to limit the impact. The second is a benefit to the affected neighborhoods.
It’s best to look at your excerpt in context:
“Section ion 14. Exceptions
The City has the authority to modify the application process when an exceptional need exists. In a situation where an event has withdrawn from the annual event schedule, the City may, through an alternate process, allow other event organizers to request the opportunity to provide a replacement event. The City will utilize the processes as follows:
1. Street and Sidewalk Use Advisory Committee will create a list of criteria that each potential applicant must meet. These criteria and a response form will be provided to interested parties and made available on the Special Events webpage. The City reserves the right to request clarification or documentation to support responses.
2. Responses will be reviewed and submittals that meet all the stated requirements will be included in the applicant pool
3. A blind drawing will be made from that pool, giving each applicant an equal chance of being selected.
4. This selection process will be exempt from the appeal process.
5. The selected applicant is required to meet all other requirements of the program and these Administrative Rules.”
That sentence stands alone. Your desire to say the only exception is the very specific one they outline and it’s process next doesn’t make it so. It would read like this if it meant what you claim:
“The City has the authority to modify the application process when an event has withdrawn from the annual event schedule, the City may, through an alternate process, allow other event organizers to request the opportunity to provide a replacement event.”
The fact that it is a general statement and doesn’t specifically mention that specific situation allows the city to modify the process for any exceptional need not just one. Anyway I’ve probably exceeded my post limit for this article and it seems pretty clear you don’t have a leg to stand on.
No policy that says they can’t change their permit process, no requirement for parades or 1st amendment demonstrations to publicly release their route, no evidence the city wouldn’t make similar exceptions for other events with similar safety and impact concerns, so no evidence or reason to suspect a conspiracy or collusion, no evidence the route exists as a written document to produce, and no support from the Mult. DA. Good luck with your lawsuit.
Idle,
You appear to be trying to paste together a ransom note by picking and choosing sentences and words that you want while ignoring those you don’t. Let’s try this, From the application WNBR signed and submitted
“A precondition for receipt of a special event permit is public notification and signage.
Sponsors of athletic, large parades, and other uses with a closed course shall notify residential complexes, neighborhood groups, businesses and churches which will be affected by the street and sidewalk use (signature form enclosed). The notification shall be made not more than fourteen (14) days and not less than six (6) days before the street and sidewalk use date. The notification shall be in writing and shall include the name and telephone number of the appropriate City official to contact in case of questions or concerns. All public notifications must be reviewed by the Special Events program prior to distribution. Delivery confirmation/signatures need to be provided no less than 5 days prior to the event date. Additionally, you may be required to post signage at and around major intersections.”
Check block provided to affirm: “I have read and agree to the notification requirements at the end of this application and understand that failure to notify the public will result in the revocation of my event permit. “
New media is not a proper notification method. I don’t read the paper or watch TV. If they don’t sent it to my house then I’m not notified.
Patrick seems to want this to go back to a non-permitted event. But there are reasons the police are now involved.
No permit is needed to ride a bicycle naked in protest.
No permit is needed to ride a bicycle on city streets.
No permit is needed to peacefully assemble.
No permit is needed to protest the government.
No permit is needed to speak your mind.
Ride organizers got tired of telling police these things every year and thus offered to work with them under certain conditions. This is a give and take. If police give out the route info then ride organizers will no longer give that information to police in advance. The police wanted to better ensure the safety of this event and were allowed to do so by the ride organizers. The ride organizers made the rules of this optional deal with the city.
What you have here is a constitutionally protected protest that the organizers have allowed the city police some management of. You’re allowed to disagree with how the city decides to prioritize its safety dollars, because I sure do, and vote and/or protest appropriately accordingly.
…message threading fail… reposted as new post…
No permit is needed to ride a bicycle naked in protest. – Correct. As long as it is not for sexual gratification you can do this today, tomorrow, and everyday.
No permit is needed to ride a bicycle on city streets – Correct. As long as you obey traffic regulations you have every right to enjoy the streets in the same manner as every other citizen has the right to enjoy the streets.
No permit is needed to peacefully assemble. – Correct. While I would offer it is more courteous to your neighbors, notification and permits are not required.
No permit is needed to protest the government. – Absolutely. Which is one of the reasons I can engage in my protest activities to encourage the City to obey the law.
No permit is needed to speak your mind. – Heck yeah. I’m living proof.
What you are missing, however, is :
– 16.10.050 Compliance Required.
It is unlawful for a pedestrian or the operator of any vehicle to disobey the instructions of a traffic control device placed in accordance with the provisions of this Title, unless otherwise directed by an authorized officer.
It is unlawful for any person to refuse or fail to comply with any lawful order, signal, or the direction of any officer displaying a badge with the legal authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.
tldr; Just because you are upset about something doesn’t give you authority to monopolize the public right of way that belongs to all and grossly inconvenience your neighbors. To do that, you need a permit. Which you obtain by following the permit administrative regulations everyone else has to follow. Unless you know somebody with the city in which case they will hook you up with special treatment.
The rule requires that “sponsors of athletic and large parade events with a closed course, shall notify residential complexes, neighborhood groups, businesses and churches which will be affected by the event closures” at least 6 days in advance. That’s a lot of notices. How do they do that without revealing the route?
From the application WNBR signed and submitted
“A precondition for receipt of a special event permit is public notification and signage.
Sponsors of athletic, large parades, and other uses with a closed course shall notify residential complexes, neighborhood groups, businesses and churches which will be affected by the street and sidewalk use (signature form enclosed). The notification shall be made not more than fourteen (14) days and not less than six (6) days before the street and sidewalk use date. The notification shall be in writing and shall include the name and telephone number of the appropriate City official to contact in case of questions or concerns. All public notifications must be reviewed by the Special Events program prior to distribution. Delivery confirmation/signatures need to be provided no less than 5 days prior to the event date. Additionally, you may be required to post signage at and around major intersections.”
Check block provided to affirm: “I have read and agree to the notification requirements at the end of this application and understand that failure to notify the public will result in the revocation of my event permit. “
The rule requires that “sponsors of athletic and large parade events with a closed course, shall notify residential complexes, neighborhood groups, businesses and churches which will be affected by the event closures” at least 6 days in advance. That’s a lot of notices. How do they do that without revealing the route?
Actually, I could probably answer my own question by requesting the notice from last year’s route, along with the required list of recipients, and seeing who exactly was notified and what they were told. If I cared enough, that was.
I’ll be writing #IamwithCashman on my skinny NAKED Chinaman ass. Good for Pat, calling for public transperancy. WNBR route secrecy, all good. Pat’s gub’mint transparency, not so much.
The public’s right to know ALL government actions trumps PUBLICALLY naked riders’ ridiculous pie-in-sky wish to not be catcalled. Don’t want to be catcalled? Don’t ride naked. #Boom
Claiming route disclosure would chill turnout has NO credibility.
Wanna beat Cashman? Simply give him what he wants.
#IamwithCashman
I admit I’ve not read all of the comments above. But as the person who came up with the “Safety” Theme for the 2006 WNBR Dance Party (yes, we brought back the martini rider and he wasn’t necessarily the safest bike lane art but the most celebratory), AND as someone who has worked as a public servant responding to public information requests, my thoughts are this.
If I were the city official receiving his public information request, I would first point out that the route is ultimately NOT a secret. Right now it is. And it is secret for a legitimate reason, safety. I don’t recall public information requests being held to a standard of ASAP – for example, I worked at a granting agency and we knew well in advance of who would get funding and who would not of the “official” notice. And if an applicant asked, which is a public information request, we had not obligation to reveal because the information would be revealed soon enough.
Second, even if the information was never revealed, if it is the safety of thousands of people at stake, why would his request be more important?
Public safety is NOT cronyism. It is NOT a preferred group.
Giving him information that would risk thousands of people would make HIM the preferred group. Just because a citizen demands information doesn’t mean he is entitled to get it.
I’ve personally made the decision never to participate in the ride again (which, I recall, in 2015 and 2016 we had several elected officials whom I will not name specifically. Those early days, it was a civic event) because it no longer feels safe. When people talk about it, I rarely hear the original motivations for the ride mentioned. But I digress.
What’s puzzling to me is he lives in SW where we don’t even get Sunday Parkways much less be included in something like this. He’s clearly emotional about it, though. We have so many more issues in this city to be discussing.
Great comment Carolyn. Thank you for sharing it.
Flagging for comment of the week.
Don’t try using logic or appealing to empathy, because he has none. He doesn’t care if the disclosure risks your lives and well-being. He has latched onto this fight and won’t let go until he wins.
” I don’t recall public information requests being held to a standard of ASAP – for example, I worked at a granting agency and we knew well in advance of who would get funding and who would not of the “official” notice. And if an applicant asked, which is a public information request, we had not obligation to reveal because the information would be revealed soon enough.”
Great…advocating public servants slow walk an otherwise legitimate request…fantastic.
Fits right in with pretending no one knows the route b/c city officials claim to not have a photocopy of it.
That he’s new to the area, that he lives in SW so likely not to be disrupted, that there are bigger fish to fry…these are all weak distractions against what seems like an otherwise simple and legitimate request: WNBR is a large and disruptive event, why shouldn’t the public be able to know the specifics? If its really all about safety, then I suppose the next time some alt-right group wants to run a meandering protests thru our streets, they should get to keep it super secret too…certainly they would be able to claim concerns of personal safety, no? is there precedent already set in that regard, or is WNBR doing that for us?
“WNBR is a large and disruptive event, why shouldn’t the public be able to know the specifics?”
Other then safety the other stated reason for not providing the route is it would make the demonstration even bigger and more disruptive. If you care about it being disruptive you are better off with the route being secret.
Thanks for response. Does this risk precedent for other protests (ie alt-right) who argue for disruptive but secretive route in order for safety concerns? Or has that precedent already sailed?
“Just because a citizen demands information doesn’t mean he is entitled to get it.”
Actually Carolyn, yes “he”is entitled to get it. That’s actually the very core right of equitable, accountable and transparent government.
“A public body that declines to disclose public records bears the burden of establishing that the records are exempt from disclosure. The Oregon Court of Appeals has made it clear that there is an overall presumption in favor of disclosure and that the exemptions from disclosure are to be narrowly construed.””
I like how you contradict yourself in your own single comment.
Chris,
You are correct in that I have exactly zero empathy for anyone who misuses the public trust to hook up their friends, nor should any of us. What concerns me is the stunning lack of empathy demonstrated here for those who ultimately pay the price for corrupt and obscure government through biased and unfair treatment, prejudiced policies enacted to benefit the favored few, funneling assets and assistance to favored groups at the expense of all others. The entitled privilege on display is really quite shameful. But hey, at least some folks get to ride their bikes naked, so totally worth it.
As an earlier commentor said, I really, really wish Patrick had this much passion around the ODOT Rose Quarter Environmental Assessment and public process. And used it as his poster child of government obfuscation for the privilege of favored groups. If an open and transparent gov’t is truly his goal. Which I really don’t think it is.
Yeah, “pay the price” in this case means “are unexpectedly stuck in their car or home for up to 30 minutes while a bunch of naked people bike by.” Oh, the humanity!
There are so many other windmills that are so much more deserving of being tilted against, it’s a shame Patrick is constitutionally unable (I mean his mental / emotional makeup, not our founding document) to choose one of them.
As a statement, instead of responses which I have mostly been providing, to anyone who has a nagging voice whispering to them “I like the WNBR, but I like open government, but I don’t want anyone to get hurt….”; please consider the element of choice. In the WNBR we have a group of consenting adults choosing to participate in an event that, regardless of whether the route is disclosed or not, will always contain some degree of danger. It’s not as if the police will be ordering everyone else to remain in their homes. There will be people on the streets and some of them may decide to break our common laws and do something shameful, and hopefully they will be arrested and charged. But the participants in this got the opportunity to choose and chose to participate. The downstream recipients of the effects of the City’s misbehavior in support of the WNBR get no choice in the matter. If corruption is rewarded with success it encourages more corruption (at a minimum it certainly doesn’t discourage more corruption), and it won’t be the participants in the WNBR paying the price.
City policy for police related to protests is that
“The Portland Police Bureau recognizes that the City of Portland has a tradition of free speech and assembly. It is the responsibility and priority of the Portland Police Bureau not to unduly impede the exercise of First Amendment rights and to provide for the safe and lawful expression of speech, while also maintaining the public safety, peace and order. A police response that impedes otherwise protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.”
This is a group that is exercising their freedom of speech in the form of protest. This is the finding of the judicial system. You are choosing to demand that the city break its public safety policy to satisfy your need to increase the danger for protesters so they are less likely to protest.
Your goal is to quell this freedom of speech through increased threat of violence. Shameful, Colonel. This isn’t a war game.
Ahhh, right, it’s not a “war game”, it’s a bike ride. For which you are willing to sell your rights as a citizen. I’m not. Also, as I mentioned it’s (or was) LtCol, not Col. Think Henry Blake vice Sherman Potter.
Sounds to me like somebody is practicing their language for a future manifesto.
Signing out until after 2019 WNBR.