The Power of the Mayor

Yesterday, Portland saw a vivid example of the power and influence of the Mayor, under the current Commission structure. Mayor Potter persuaded Sam Adams and Dan Saltzman to vote in locked step with him on three contentious referrals to the May ballot, to the point of absurdity. Here is my testimony on the Form of Government issue, telling you how I resolved my ethical choice dilemma:

“I’m Amanda Fritz, speaking only for myself. As you know, I was the first ever candidate to qualify for Portland’s progressive, visionary Public Campaign Financing system of my City Council campaign. Over the past 18 months, I have defended over and over your decision not to send a ballot measure on the issue to the voters until 2010. I believe we want voters to choose whether they want a good Voter Owned Elections system, not one with the huge flaws we discovered in March 2006. I don’t understand why you need to rush these proposals to the ballot.”

“There are at least four elements of the Form of Government proposal that are outright illegal. Commissioner Saltzman, do you really want the Mayor to have the authority to move natural streams and waters of the state?”(1) [Dan’s face assumes his classic ‘puzzled’ look, and he flips through the report to see where it says that] “Mayor Potter, do you really want the power to punish paupers?”(2) [Mayor Potter looks like he would like the power to punish me] “I am shocked that you would even propose sending such language to the ballot in May.”

(1) Charter Chapter 1, Specific Powers, # 30, “to appropriate and divert from its natural course or channel temporarily or permanently, any spring or stream of water;”

(2) Ib id, # 51, “To define what constitutes vagrancy, and to provide for the support, restraint, punishment and employment of vagrants and paupers.”

“I admit to feeling conflicted in raising these issues. Like the opponents of Public Campaign Financing, I would rather you send deeply flawed recommendations to the ballot, as they will be easier to defeat. But if we want to know, once and for all – or at least for ten years or so – whether Portlanders like the current form of government or want a change, you need to offer them a good measure to vote on. These four measures do not meet that standard.*“

Mayor Potter and Commissioner Saltzman declined to remove ancient, objectionable language from the proposed Charter revisions before sending them to the ballot. Either one of them could have said, “I move to strike the clauses in the 65 Specific Powers that authorize moving streams, punishing paupers, prohibiting begging (3), and censoring published materials (4)” (those last two were issues I raised in January – they have had several weeks to realize they could easily remove them from the proposed language). I am confident such a motion would have passed 5-0. Instead, Mayor Potter said only, “Those things are in the Charter now” – as if that makes it OK to send them out as part of the package, and to keep them in Portland’s Charter in the year 2007.

(3) Ib id, # 54, “To prohibit the exhibition of deformed or crippled persons, and to prohibit all persons from begging upon the streets or in public places.”

(4) Ib id, # 50, “To prevent the sale, circulation, display and disposition of obscene matter, including books, papers, prints, pictures, films and other material, and of obscene advertisements of any kind, and to punish any person who sells or offers for sale, displays or who circulates or disposes of such literature, books, papers, prints, pictures, films, advertising matter and other material, and to define and declare from time to time what literature, books, papers, prints, pictures, films, advertising matter and other material are obscene within the purposes and province of this provision.”

Appalling. I can think of no reasonable explanation for why they chose not to act on the information provided. Indeed, the only unreasonable motive can only have been stubborn insistence on Staying the Course. And whatever backroom deals made putting everything on the ballot in May an “emergency” requiring allowing Sam Adams to be allowed to vote by phone. When Commissioner Saltzman had the excellent idea that delaying the vote on Civil Services changes until November would allow for negotiations to improve them, his chief-of-staff, Brendan Finn, went up on the dais and whispered into his ear. Next thing we hear, Commissioner Saltzman is “comfortable putting this on the ballot in May.”

As I waited to testify on the last measure, on the Council’s relationship to the Portland Development Commission, it became very clear what had happened over the previous five hours. One of Mayor Potter’s reasons for referral, stated in his summary for the form of government debate, is that he believes candidates for office in 2008 need to know the citizens’ answer in order to decide whether to run. What he really means is, he and Sam Adams want to know about the Mayor’s role. Nobody is going to choose whether to run or not run for Commissioner based on whether s/he has the current tasks or not, but candidates for Mayor may consider the campaign and the job more worth the hassle if it’s even more powerful than it is today. We saw the power of the Mayor under the current Commission structure yesterday: lock up two other votes, and you can pass legislation authorizing punishment of poor people. Mayor Potter wants more power even than that. As I said in my last testimony slot:

“Despite what the Portland Business Alliance and The Oregonian will be selling over the next three months, there is no compelling reason to approve any of the Charter changes. There is no urgency other than that created by people wanting more power for a single person rather than an elected group of five. I urge Portlanders who care about public process, and access of citizens to elected officials with the power to address citizens’ concerns, to vote no on amendments to Portland’s Charter.”

* Note: My comment objecting to all four ballot measures was made before the discussion of the referral on the Portland Development Commission. In that case, the Council totally ignored the Charter Reform Commission’s recommendation, and referred Erik Sten’s substitute ballot measure instead. I support that measure, to make the Portland City Council the budget committee of the Portland Development Commission, subject to companion authorizing legislation passing in the State Legislature.