Alternatively, he can still put my name on the ballot.

How much will it cost the city to hold a special election for his replacement?

There is a price to pay for his organization refusing to subject themselves, in the legislature, to a state board to administer tests and assess ethics, rather than some private Florida outfit. (Incredible!)

"Walk" I say and announce an election opening for CPA's-only, until such time as the legislature gives me a direct route, in court, to attack the entire body of Certified Internal Auditors as a group via a state board, on both substantive and ethical issues.

Even still, the AG's status as lawyer is incompatible with the OSB's hand's off approach by reason of his election. I suppose a parallel angle of attack is available here for even CPA's, by reason of election.

I could be testing the ethics of the judiciary soon, and that of your loyal ally in the City Attorney's office; who is not elected and thus is quite free to be disciplined by the bar. The court has said that one may not use free speech rights as a means to demand admission to the bar, which is consistent with disallowing any effort by the city attorney's office to favor you over me or me over you in an election matter. Their client is the public and their boss is not the city council, even though the city council can pick from among a list of candidates, but the Oregon Supreme Court. You would have to argue that the court does not have such authority over the unelected city attorney staff (it would be swatted as "not well taken" or some such simple explanation, just because they can, and will).

"Walk" -- I say again. I might still be satisfied today by a surprise announcement by the state's franchise of the Florida outfit that sits at the head of Certified Internal Auditors that they will propose and support the creation of an oversight board during the next legislative session.

The City Attorney staff can obtain some limited measure of immunity from personal liability by merely asking the OSB for clarification of their role in the matter above. But if they do not ask (ask George that is, not Alice in Wonderland) then they are free to be attacked in court on the matter.

Bonus challenge -- suppose I as the elected city auditor announced that I would not pay any city money for anyone's campaign, to no one, uniformly. Ask the city attorney if she can divine any way to force me to cough up such money, against my will. Suppose Sten went to court to compel the delivery of dollars from the public, against my will, to his campaign. On who's side would the city attorney's loyalty fall? That is, can she pick and choose? I say she cannot. But the staff attorney did just that, pick favorites, by rejecting my February argument to legal staff for the City Auditor's office, acting as your private lawyer rather than acting as an officer of the court on behalf of the citizens of Portland.

I'll have a top-ten list of substantive matters for preparation of packets to present to folks who have prosecutorial powers -- going back at least five years. (I would prefer to have a staff of 40 to aid me.)

I won't even need to name the present city auditor as a party in the case. If Gary Blackmer insists on joining the case, on his own for his own interests I will insist on joining the private association to which he belongs and for which he believes such membership gives him greater rights than I.

As of February, back when I made my demand for placement on the ballot and sought pre-authorization to collect 1000 signatures with 5 dollar bills, for the Auditor's slot, the Auditor and the legal staff became aware of the legal vulnerability of the campaign funding scheme, and the authority of the Auditor to continue to serve. It could be a fact question whether Sten too was aware of the vulnerability, and my particular challenge. That is partially why I asserted to legal staff that the quandary of competing (and conflicting) loyalty between elected city officials and the Oregon Supreme Court court be partially remedied by, at least as to my run for City Auditor, by having the full city council address the matter rather than the City Auditor. Then, of course, Sten's demand for public funds from Blackmer would roughly parallel a demand by Blackmer for public funds from Sten, or a like power to deny funds to me.

Can I challenge the validity of the action of the city, taken with the complete complicity of the legal staff of the City Attorney, to deliver money to Sten's campaign?

The present City Auditor could still "Walk." Sten could return his public funds too.

(See inspiration at Who cares? Opie got re-elected; I care.)