New Reasons to Vote No on all 4 Charter measures

Note: Regular readers have seen much of the following before. There is a new issue (underlined) towards the end, plus my report of the Council’s response, after the text of my statement.

My Citizen Communication to the Portland City Council this morning:

I’m Amanda Fritz, speaking for myself. Citizens of Portland, I urge you to vote No on all four ballot measures in the May election. Portland’s Charter is its Constitution. If you haven’t read the current Charter and all the proposed changes, please vote No. I am shocked and outraged that neither the ballot nor the Voters Pamphlet shows the actual language Portlanders are being asked to enshrine in our Charter. Visit AmandaFritz.com to find links to what is actually being proposed.

The robust community conversation three members of Council promised when referring the four Charter changes to the May election has not happened. Three of the measures have had barely any review and discussion in the community. The glossy mailers arriving in Portland households this week are slick PR, designed to influence voters rather than give accurate information. This process for making Charter changes is wrong. I ask Portlanders to vote No on 26-89, which would allow 15 unelected citizens hand-picked by the Council to refer more Charter changes to the ballot any May or November. Constitutional changes are at least as important as property tax hikes. They should require either a double majority, or be on the ballot only in the General Election of even years. Turnout so far this year is 9%. In last year’s even year primary, the total turnout was less than 36%. Changes could be approved next Tuesday with the affirmative vote of less than 20% of the electorate. That’s wrong. Citizens, please vote No on 26-89.

Measure 26-90 would severely reduce Portland’s Civil Service protections for staff and citizens. The Voters Pamphlet says it “streamlines and modernizes outdated language”, but in fact it cuts out important Constitutional value statements such as providing all citizens with a fair and equal opportunity for public service, and improving efficiency and economy of the agencies of the City. What is outdated about this language? If citizens continue to want our Charter to say we want efficiency, economy, and fair employment practices in the City, please vote No on 26-90.

Measure 26-91 has received the most attention, so I’ll just say that unless citizens want all future Mayors to have much more power than our current structure, please vote No on 26-91.

Measure 26-92 changes the lines of authority for the Portland Development Commission. The Commission has done many good things since its adoption into the Charter in 1958. Measure 26-92 uses a hit-it-with-a-blunt-object approach to solve ill-defined problems within PDC. Making the Council the budget committee for the city’s urban renewal agency would make Portland the only city in the state without citizens being required by state law to have an equal number of representatives on the budget committee as elected officials. That fact has not been discussed with the community. Your budget process with PDC this year was exemplary. Why is Measure 26-92 necessary? And why are you supporting HB 3104 at the Legislature, which would lock in to state law the requirement for the Council to be the budget committee, instead of leaving that choice to Portland voters? I ask Portlanders to vote No on Measure 92, and all four Charter changes. They have not had enough review to justify changing our city’s constitution.

I thank Commissioner Sten for testifying at the Senate workgroup hearing yesterday, asking them to delay the vote on this bill until after the will of Portland voters is known. But why change state law to take that right away from future Portlanders? And, I ask all five of you to promise, right here and now, that if Measure 26-92 fails, you will ask for HB 3104 to be tabled and withdrawn from consideration by the Legislature.

That was the end of my planned speech, but as it turned out neither Randy Leonard nor Dan Saltzman was present, so I switched the number to three. Erik Sten immediately raised his right hand, promising to push for withdrawal of HB 3104 if Measure 26-92 fails. Sam Adams nodded and said, “sure”. I looked at the Mayor, with my “I expect an answer” look perfected over 20+ years of motherhood. His response? “You’re here to give a statement”.

I’ll take that as a No. And I will be smiling all day over the manner of its delivery, doubtless perfected over a long career as a law enforcement officer.