Commercials in Parks

A month ago, I wrote about the meeting this Thursday, February 15, 7 p.m. in the Rose Room on the third floor of City Hall, to discuss Sponsorship in Portland’s public parks. Randy Gragg in The Oregonian today asks, “What should it cost to name a park?“, and calls the topic “a new draft policy on naming”. In fact, this policy has been used by Portland Parks & Recreation (PPR) for years, but only now is it being reviewed by the public and offered for approval by the City Council.

This highlights yet another problem with the proposed change in Portland’s form of government. Under our current system, the Commissioner-in-charge can change or set policy under the guise of “Administrative Rules”. This sponsorship policy, and the reorganization of the Parks bureau, were both done without any public review or Council approval. In our current structure, five Commissioners-in-charge govern Administrative Rules, so no single person has the power to set such policies in all bureaus. Under the proposed change to a Super-Strong Mayor, the Mayor would get to set Adminstrative Rules across the board. Even though the new Charter is supposed to give the whole Council budget and policy authority, in practice the Mayor could independently make sweeping, important changes that affect both the budget and city policy, by claiming them as “Administrative Rules”. A depressing prospect, for those who care about public participation in important City decisions.

Happily, we still have the Commission form of government right now, so citizens at the SW Neighborhood Parks Committee were able to exert pressure on PP&R and staff from the office of Dan Saltzman, the Commissioner-in-charge of Parks, to allow public comment and Council adoption of the Sponsorship and Naming policies. The public review is only one meeting, this Thursday, February 15, 7 p.m. in the Rose Room on the third floor of City Hall, but still, it’s better than using a policy that has had no review by the community.

Another reason I like the Commission form of government is that it allows elected officials to consider abstract policies in the light of their real life, practical applications. The Oregonian‘s article today is helpful in giving a current example of why the Parks Sponsorship and Naming policies are important, and how they play out. For instance, even though the policy sets the standard that 60% of capital construction costs must be donated before a donor gets to name a park, the article today quotes some of those involved in naming the new downtown park as saying maybe 41% is enough.

The Naming policy states PPR may intervene to change a name “if the person for whom it is named turns out to be disreputable or subsequently acts in a disreputable way”. I believe that determination is something the public should have the right to comment on. For instance, the Big Money donor for the new downtown park is currently anonymous. Just suppose, for the sake of this discussion, that donor is Neil Goldschmidt. Mayor Goldschmidt certainly was a leader in making downtown Portland a great place to live, work, shop, and play. He has also admitted to statutory rape. Is the actual name being considered, as well as the amount of money donated, something that is relevant to the discussion?

Yesterday, I noted the disconnect when real estate developer Tom Moyer is lauded for his public philanthropy, while contracting with ServiceMaster, a company paying the workers who clean his buildings $28 a day. Should the honor of having a park named after a person include consideration of all aspects of the person’s life and business practices, or just the dollar amount donated for the park? Randy Gragg’s article says Mr. Moyer doesn’t want the new park named for him; my question relates to the general policy, rather than the specific park currently up for naming.

Please read the article on the downtown park, and the PPR policies. Think about what the policy should say, to ensure that you would be comfortable with any name chosen using the “draft” policies. Then come to the meeting, this Thursday, February 15, 7 p.m. in the Rose Room on the third floor of City Hall, to join the discussion, or visit PPR’s web site to leave comments on line.

Did I mention the meeting is this Thursday, February 15, 7 p.m. in the Rose Room on the third floor of City Hall?