March Update

Why Distort & Delete the Facts?

Dear Friends,


Once again the opposition is sending out misleading information regarding the Clackamas County Commissions role in the CRC in early 2013. You deserve to know the full story, so in respect of your time I highlighted  some key points in red.


I submitted the following letter to Pamplin Media in April 2013:



Let’s get the facts on the CRC            (April 2013)


The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) is embroiled in continual controversy. Details, such as bridge height, tolling, funding, seismic issues with the bridge supports, and many more have been reported by the Oregonian. When the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) took up the issue on January 16th I strongly advocated taking a position, the board agreed and staff was directed to request the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to make a presentation to the BCC. ODOT agreed and it was a matter of scheduling it on the agenda with Chair Ludlow’s cooperation.


However, on February 2nd Chair Ludlow placed his single page CRC resolution on the February 7th agenda without any other documentation. Without the ODOT work session or our staff’s input it was both surprising and premature as to why this was seemingly rushed through. On February 7th we had substantial public comment and unanswered questions were posed. Consequently, I abstained from the vote. My vote was premised by saying “I am not going make an uninformed decision.”


I recently read a ‘letter to the editor’ from a misinformed citizen that was loaded with errors, including that I voted no on the CRC resolution when I actually abstained. Rushing into an up or down vote without information would neither be clear nor sound. My intention following that vote was again to schedule the work session as approved on January 16th.


At our State of the County event a citizen requested that we take a stand on the CRC. Chair Ludlow responded with his experience and I responded with mine. There is more to the story however, and I will fill in some gaps.


The question that people apparently want to know is why has the BCC not taken a position on the CRC? Many of our citizens expect transparency and it is clear they deserve just that.


Just a few days after that February 7th meeting, February 12th to be exact, I raised the CRC work session and once again I asked that it be scheduled soon and that we take a position. Oddly enough there was no support to do so? I persisted by making a motion to direct staff to schedule the work session on the CRC. The motion failed 1-4, I was outvoted which meant that no work session would occur and no position would be taken. It is still a mystery as to why, but I have honored the decision of the BCC.


It has been a long standing practice of the BCC to not challenge a majority vote and it has been a practice of mine to not criticize a decision of a fellow commissioner. I am honoring that while fulfilling a responsibility to answer these questions from the public and clarifying any misinformation. All of our meetings are recorded for those who wish to validate my summary.


The citizens should not get the wrong impression and the commissioners should have the facts on the CRC.


 Here is an excerpt of the 2/21/13 Biz Meeting video @ 1:19:08-1:19:15

“I have not, I have never been for the CRC project, so let me make that perfectly clear” (Paul Savas)


After a supporter of mine received the “newsletter” I was asked why was the “newsletter” incomplete and misleading?


“Draw your own conclusions” I replied.


But wait, there’s more. Months afterward it is back on the agenda for a work session and a few meetings later we have a CRC resolution that passed with a 5-0 vote. (as noted above at the January 16th, 2013 work session I pressed the commission to take a position on the CRC, it took until December to get it done.)


Click & Read here: BCC Passes CRC Resolution 


District 38 Round Two:


A video of the County Chair speaking at an AFP meeting was posted on some websites where assertions were made.

Somehow it was suggested that voting for the successful candidate meant that her beliefs were the same beliefs of those that voted for her? 


The “newsletter” also suggested a similar relationship. The newsletter even suggested there was a “initial selection vote”. 


My commentary recognized past disagreements and disagreements on issues/opinions discussed by the successful candidate during the appointment interview. Secondly I did not have a “initial selection vote”, but I expressed my “leaning” towards the candidate while I was fully processing my final decision. Only one candidate answered my highway question to my satisfaction. Watch the entire interview.


You may recall my last posting on this matter.


It is unfortunate that our energies cannot be better spent.  The political nonsense and attacks ultimately divide communities and organizations. It serves no good will and ultimately wastes taxpayer money. 


We can do better, please join me in my campaign for re-election.


Paul  Savas


Want more information: 

Our new and improved website is 

(You can make on-line contributions on the website)

or you can email Paul directly at

or call him at 503.312.1379503.312.1379.

This post was written by
Comments are closed.