The Concise Guide to Charter Changes
I’m participating in my first public meeting on the proposed Charter changes this evening, so I pulled together a summary of the most important points in the May ballot measures. Comments/suggestions welcome, as I will be talking on the issues many times over the next eight weeks and will appreciate input that refines the information.
The Ten Second version:
These are changes to Portland’s Constitution. If you don’t understand and agree with every word, vote NO.
The Ten Minute version:
There are four separate Measures on the May 15, 2007 ballot, proposing changes in Portland’s Charter. The Charter is both our city’s Constitution and Owner’s Manual. It sets the form of government, and specifies how city politicians and staff are supposed to serve the long term public good.
The most significant change is third on the ballot, Measure 26-91. It would change the Council’s authority from the current system, where the Mayor has more power than City Commissioners but all Council members have some ability to manage bureau staff, set administrative policies, and work on policy initiatives. The proposal on the ballot would give all administrative and executive powers to the Mayor, and creates the position of Chief Administrative Officer to run the bureaus instead of elected officials overseeing the professional bureau directors who manage staff actions. Under the proposal, the remaining four City Council members would have greatly reduced roles in decision-making in Portland.
Reasons to reject the proposed Form of Government in 26-91:
1. Portland is a wonderful place to live, with a AAA bond rating (unlike most cities). Many of the things that make it special have grown out of initiatives of individual Commissioners on the City Council, from access to decision-makers by neighbors, and because citizens keep politicians accountable for performance.
Under the proposal, all suggestions, complaints about bureau staff, or requests for projects in neighborhoods, would have to go through the Mayor, and many would be decided by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Fees and assessments would be set by the Mayor and CAO instead of the whole Council. Putting all city services under the control of an unelected bureaucrat isn’t the Portland Way.
2. The proposal gives too much power to one person, with less access for citizens.
There are very few checks-and-balances on the power of the Mayor under the proposed system. Only the Mayor would have the power to fire the Chief Administrative Officer. The Mayor could sell off city property without consulting Council. Sale of parks, for example, currently requires at least 4 votes on the Council. The members of all citizen commissions, boards, and bureau advisory committees would be appointed only by the Mayor.
3. This proposal is no better than similar ones rejected by Portlanders seven times.
The second most significant proposal is Measure 26-90, which greatly reduces Civil Service protections and regulations. It increases the number of “at-will” employees who may be fired by politicians and upper management without cause. This proposal guts the current Civil Service chapter of the Charter, adopted to counter problems with political favoritism, patronage, and nepotism. Seven pages of safeguards for staff and citizens are reduced to two, with many details establishing fair hiring and firing practices removed.
Reasons to Vote No on 26-90:
1. We don’t want a government where all top jobs are given to friends of one elected official, which is what will be allowed if these changes and the Form of Government proposal pass. The Civil Service code protects citizens as well as city employees. One of the main functions of the Civil Service regulations is to ensure fairness in city employment. The Charter change proposed for city employees includes language allowing even front-line workers to be re-classified to “at will” employees.
2. The Civil Service proposal further increases the power of the Mayor over the bureaus, as well as over the rest of the City Council. If the power of the Mayor is increased and the role of other Council members reduced, it will be even more important to have the checks and balances of a clear Civil Service code and a citizen volunteer Civil Service Board with more authority to protect the public interest.
3. The current Charter specifies how to give public notice of rule changes. These details are gone in the new version. As in the form of government proposals, many administrative rules and bureau policies are moved out of the public process with oversight by Council, with a broad range of decision-making given to one unelected bureaucrat, and commissions/staff appointed by the Mayor.
The third Measure on which I urge a NO vote is 26-89, which would establish a Charter Review Commission appointed by the Council. This Commission would have the power to refer further Charter changes to the ballot independently, without approval from the elected members of City Council. The City Council amended the proposal of the current Charter Commission before referring it to the ballot, adding seemingly obvious language such as requiring public hearings by the Commission, and a stipulation that the Commission’s membership must be diverse (although the Council forgot to include gender balance in their list of demographic requirements). The concept of ongoing Charter Review is fine; the details of this proposal are not.
Reasons to Vote NO on 26-89:
1. Appointed citizens are not accountable to the public and should not have the power to set the legislative agenda for the city’s Charter and form of government. Once a measure is referred to the ballot, citizens may only vote Yes or No. It’s not reasonable to expect citizens to participate as fully in Charter Review Commission meetings as they do in processes led by City Council. Elected officials should refer measures to the ballot, not hand-picked committees.
2. The four measures pushed by the current Commission are wasting time and money in a hurry-up process that does not allow adequate opportunities for meaningful public review, discussion, and education. Future Commissions could send further multiple, complicated measures directly to the ballot with similarly inadequate time for discussion of the details, if 26-89 passes.
3. The proposed format for future Commissions doesn’t include a mechanism to ensure the 20 people chosen will represent balanced interests and demographics. While each Council member nominates four members, there is no mention of how the group’s composition is determined to ensure equal representation of different areas of the city, cultural background, etc. And no requirement at all for gender equity.
The current process for review of the Charter Commission’s final report was appalling. Citizens were given less than two weeks to read the proposal before the hearing at Council, and had very little ability to alter the Commission’s language going to the ballot. As a result, there are numerous flaws, errors, and outright horrible elements in the language on the ballot in May – such as keeping outdated language continuing to give the Council the power to punish paupers and censor publications the Mayor deems “obscene”. This Charter Review Commission, while diverse and hard-working, has not demonstrated the wisdom of giving future Commissions even more power and autonomy.
The final Charter change measure on the ballot in May is 26-92, which would make City Council the budget committee for the Portland Development Commission (PDC), which manages the city’s urban renewal areas. This is intended to ensure that PDC’s spending is aligned with Council’s priorities, and included in the city’s overall budgeting process. Critics are concerned that giving Council authority over the PDC budget could lead to diverting urban renewal funds to politicians’ pet projects, rather than being managed by independent, appointed business experts on the PDC Board.
The entire City Council rejected the Charter Review Commission’s recommendation on PDC, and voted unanimously to substitute the proposal in 26-92. I tend to trust Commissioners Erik Sten and Randy Leonard on PDC issues, so I may vote Yes on this measure.
Or, I may follow my own advice at the beginnning of this summary, and vote NO, because there hasn’t been enough time or discussion to figure out exactly what the proposal means and what the pros and cons might be.
I’ve attached a flyer from the Committee for Accountable Government, and a one-page handout summarizing my summary, both of which users are encouraged to print out for distribution as desired. For more details on past posts here about Charter reform, use the search feature in the left sidebar.