So many loose ends

I’ve spent the afternoon researching the rules in the proposed Portland City Charter revision for the new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). It’s hard to track and understand, because the regulations are scattered all over, rather than being in a logical order. For example, on Page 33:

ARTICLE 5. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
Section 2-501. Appointment and Removal. There shall be a Chief Administrative Officer of the City who shall have managerial qualifications commensurate with the duties of the office.

Umm… excuse me? That doesn’t say anything about “Appointment and Removal”. And nor does anything in the rest of the Article. Shouldn’t the content of an article in the Charter, y’know, relate to its title?

Further up, under POWERS OF THE MAYOR on Page 24, that’s where you’ll find:

(f) Appoint the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to confirmation by the Council, and have sole authority to remove the Chief Administrative Officer.

Oh, right. Hey, wasn’t one of the purposes of this Charter reform to make it more organized and easy for citizens to read and understand?

Other information gleaned about the CAO position:

* Elected officials are required to live in Portland; the CAO is not.

* The new Charter doesn’t specify minimum qualifications for the CAO position, nor any circumstances under which the CAO must be removed.

* I don’t see anything prohibiting the CAO, the most powerful bureaucrat in the city and the person in charge of implementing the budget, from being on private boards, or belonging to organizations with vested interests in city spending.

* There a whole paragraph of rules in both the current and proposed versions [on page 36, current section 2-60(6), to become 2-60(4)], prohibiting City Council members from such things as owning shares in utilities. Some of these rules require automatic vacation of the office if violated; this paragraph does not apply to the CAO.

The proposed Charter says that the CAO “shall devote full time to the duties of that office and shall hold no other paid position, pursue no other business, be a candidate for no public office, and hold no other public office except as a member of the national guard or military reserve.”

Can someone explain to me how it would work to have Portland’s CAO, who will be the person most responsible for running the entire city and knowing what is supposed to happen in every bureau, sent off to Iraq for a year? This is a new clause – elected officials in Portland may not hold other paid jobs, period. Why did the Charter Review Commission add the language allowing dual city and military service for this crucial position, especially now when so many of our Guards and Reserves are being deployed?

These are all perhaps minor issues in relation to the bigger question of changing the whole form of Portland City government. But there are many loose ends throughout the Charter Reform Commission’s proposal. So many questions, and likely no opportunity to get them answered before Council refers four measures to the ballot in May, after the hearing tomorrow morning. Oh well.