Opinion
Cogen: It’s About Confidence and Trust
“Challenging People to Shape
a Better Future Now”
B ERNIE F OSTER
Founder/Publisher
B OBBIE D ORE F OSTER
Executive Editor
T ED B ANKS
Advertising Manager
J ERRY F OSTER
Account Executive
L ISA L OVING
News Editor
H ELEN S ILVIS
Multimedia Editor
B RUCE P OINSETTE
Reporter
D AVID K IDD
Graphic Designer
M ONICA J. F OSTER
Seattle Office Coordinator
J ULIE K EEFE
S USAN F RIED
Photographers
The Skanner Newspaper, established
in October 1975, is a weekly publica-
tion, published each Wednesday by
IMM Publications Inc.,
415 N. Killingsworth St.,
P.O. Box 5455, Portland, OR 97228.
Telephone (503) 285-5555.
E-mail: info@theskanner.com
World Wide Web site:
http://www.theskanner.com
Fax: (503) 285-2900
The Skanner is a member of the
National Newspaper Pub lishers Associ-
ation and West Coast Black Pub lishers
Association.
All photos submitted become the
property of The Skanner. We are not re -
spon sible for lost or damaged photos
either solicited or unsolicited.
© 2013 The Skanner. ALL RIGHTS RE SERVED.
REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART
WITHOUT PERMISSION PROHIBITED.
To see The Skanner
News on your smart
phone go to
theskannermobile.com
or scan this QR code
with your app.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Local news
Opinions
Jobs, Bids
Sports
Entertainment
Music reviews
Bulletin board
RSS feeds
I
n his role as Multnomah
County Chair Jeff Cogen has
done good work. Despite
shrinking government rev-
enues, Cogen championed the
social welfare safety net and
kept the books balanced.
Under his leadership, the coun-
ty has made a significant
commitment to equity in con-
tracting, hiring, and justice. It
has built one of the best health
departments in the country.
Much more remains to be
done in all those areas. And
we’ve been disappointed in the
county’s lack of outreach on
disaster preparedness.
It’s true that in most circum-
stances, having an affair is not
a firing offense. If it were, we’d
see a lot more people losing
jobs. But Cogen’s mistakes
were far more than a private
stumble that’s best sorted out
in family therapy or with pas-
toral support. The affair
between county boss Cogen
and his subordinate Sonia
Manhas hurt the county and its
employees.
Cogen has denied pulling
strings to promote Manhas to a
top job in the health depart-
ment. And we’d like to make it
clear that we believe Manhas
deserved her position.
E DITORIAL
The Skanner News
Nevertheless their affair has
created the perception that
power was abused.
been called out by an anony-
mous letter.
Nobody likes being lied to or
taken for a fool. County employ-
ees don’t like it. County
commissioners don’t like it. And
neither do voters.
So even though law does not
require it, it’s hard to see how
But the crux of the matter is that
Cogen has lost the confidence and
trust of his colleagues and the public
But that’s just part of the
harm done. For more than a
year, Cogen and Manhas main-
tained
a
secret
affair,
manipulating their work envi-
ronment to carve out time
together, blurring the lines
between work and romance,
traveling together on more than
one occasion. Their colleagues
have a right to feel betrayed.
It’s clear they had passion for
their work. But it’s unclear
where that passion left off and
their passion for one another
started. It’s also unclear if the
affair would have stopped had
their reckless behavior not
Cogen can justify holding tight
to his job when Ms. Manhas
was forced to quit hers. After all,
both are adults and Cogen was
in the more powerful position.
Cogen denies any misuse of
county funds and resources.
But even if the criminal investi-
gation agrees, his ability to lead
has been irreparably damaged.
Unfortunately, Cogen is no
longer the man for the job. Last
week all four of his colleagues
asked him to resign. He
refused. As an elected official
that is his right. He answers to
the citizens of Multnomah
County and no-one else.
But the crux of the matter is
that Cogen has lost the confi-
dence and trust of his
colleagues and the public. He
simply can’t continue supervis-
ing 4,500 employees under that
cloud. That leaves him no other
alternative. Chair Cogen you
should resign.
What do you think?
Post your comment on articles in The Skan-
ner News at www.theskanner.com
Overdraft Fees Cost U.S. Over $36 Million
In recent years, many banks
and credit unions have encour-
aged new checking account
customers to accept two items: a
debit card that replaces cash
transactions and a ‘protection’
known as overdraft coverage.
Overdraft programs automatical-
ly pay for transactions not
covered by available funds; the
bank then repays itself the over-
draft amount along with fees –
often hefty ones — from the cus-
tomer’s next deposit.
However what many unsuspect-
ing consumers soon discover is
that this so-called protection from
banks comes at an extremely high
cost. In only one year, 2011, finan-
cial
institutions
charged
consumers $16.7 billion in over-
draft fees, affecting over 36
million Americans’ checking
accounts.
High-Cost Overdraft Practices,
the latest installment in the Center
for
Responsible
Lending’s
research series, The State of Lend-
ing, found that debit cards trigger
the most disproportionate fees. On
debit card purchases, the median
overdraft charge is $35 for a $20
overdraft. Further, debit card and
ATM transactions account for at
least 35 percent of all overdraft
fees charged.
The high share of fees generated
by debit cards is ironic, since
banks and credit unions can sim-
ply decline these transactions at no
cost to the consumer – and some
institutions do. For banks that con-
tinue this pernicious practice, the
consequences for their customers
can be severe.
The report states, “Abusive
overdraft programs drive con-
sumers out of the banking system;
indeed they are the leading reason
Page 4 The Portland Skanner August 7, 2013
R ESPONSIBLE
L ENDING
Charlene
Crowell
consumers lose their checking
accounts.”
Today, three-fourths of the
nation’s largest banks and large
numbers of smaller banks and
credit unions charge fees on debit
card purchases, ATM withdrawals,
or both. Moreover, these over-
drafts and associated fees are
assessed without regard to a con-
However, CRL and others have
found that many financial institu-
tions aggressively market their
overdraft programs, pushing cus-
tomers most likely to generate the
most fees to “opt-in” for coverage.
Customers with small and no
cushions in their accounts may ini-
tially view overdraft coverage as a
way to save money. But as over-
draft fees are assessed per
transaction, the costs can quickly
become burdensome, leaving
fewer available dollars for the next
month.
“Over time, the repeated fees
strip away consumers’ cash assets,
leaving them financially worse off
than when they first over-drafted
and unable to meet obligations
‘Abusive overdraft programs drive
consumers out of the banking system;
indeed they are the leading reason
consumers lose their checking
accounts’
sumer’s ability to repay them.
In response to widespread criti-
cism
surrounding
overdraft
programs, the Federal Reserve
Board made a 2010 regulation that
required institutions to obtain a
customer’s ‘opt-in’ for overdraft
coverage on debit card purchases
and ATM withdrawals before fees
would apply. Additionally and in
the same year, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation’s guidance
advised that more than six over-
draft fees within a 12-month
period was excessive for any
account holder.
they otherwise could have met
even with no overdraft coverage at
all,” says CRL.
Some major banks have heeded
consumer concerns and improved
their overdraft practices. For
example, Bank of America, the
nation’s largest debit card issuer,
stopped charging overdraft fees on
debit card purchases. HSBC also
stopped charging overdraft fees on
debit card purchases as well as at
ATMs. Citibank has never charged
overdraft fees on debit card or
ATM transactions, and JP Morgan
Chase does not charge them on
ATM transactions.
Recent related findings by the
Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB) show that the
Fed’s opt-in rule has not eliminat-
ed the substantial harm inflicted
by overdraft fees triggered by
debit cards. CFPB determined that
involuntary account closures were
more than twice as likely for cus-
tomers that opted in to overdraft
than those who did not.
“Banks and credit unions have
long defended overdraft fees by
saying they protect customers
from bounced checks, which typi-
cally trigger insufficient funds
(NSF) fees and potentially mer-
chant fees”, states the CRL report.
“But the same justification could
not be made for debit card pur-
chases, since there is no NSF or
merchant fees charge for debit
card transactions that are declined
at check-out when the customer’s
account is short.”
CRL offers a set of policy reme-
dies to halt overdraft’s harmful
features. Highlights include ban-
ning overdraft fees on debit cards,
ATM transactions and on pre-paid
cards. CRL also advocates ban-
ning banks from manipulating the
order of consumers’ checking
transactions to increase fees.
“Without substantive reform of
the product, the fees overdrafts
generate provide financial institu-
tions too powerful an incentive to
ensure that customers continue to
incur overdraft fees – an incentive
that will continue to outweigh
even the best disclosures,” con-
cluded CRL.
Charlene Crowell is a communi-
cations manager with the Center
for Responsible Lending.