Next Up at City Council, 3/21-22, 2007

Let’s consider what Portland City Council’s agenda for next week would look like if the proposed change in the form of government passes. There are 29 resolutions and ordinances that I believe would not be on a published agenda if the Mayor is given all power to approve independently all contracts, assessments, intergovernmental agreements, and claim payments. Nineteen of these are on the Consent Agenda, requiring approximately ten seconds of Council’s time at the meeting – although each of the five Council members have been in charge of staff who have forwarded one or more items for the vote currently required. Staff members put a lot of work and effort into preparing the ordinances and resolutions for those Consent Agenda items… because just once in a while, a Commissioner will have a question or challenge. Honestly, most of them this week look extremely dull to me. I doubt even the ones on the Regular Agenda will attract much if any testimony or debate. But having them on the agenda, and staff knowing that any Council member or any member of the public could ask for one to be discussed even at the last minute, shows citizens that due diligence has been done. How would we know, in the future, if all these contracts, payments, and assessments, are done behind closed doors, whether they will be in the public interest?

Consider, for instance, *279 Provide $9,298 to Friends of Fernhill Park for purchase of play equipment (Ordinance), on the Consent agenda. I doubt there are many citizens in Portland who resent the payment of $9,298 out of a $2+Billion budget, for play equipment in a public park. By having it on the consent agenda, we see what a pitifully small allocation goes there, compared with, say, subsidies to developers in South Waterfront. And, when Friends of [name] Park in another neighborhood of the city goes with their bake-sale money to ask the City for matching funds, they know that other areas have received some help. There’s value to open public process, to having items like this on the Council’s agenda.

Note, too, another of the Consent Agenda items, under Office of Management and Finance – Business Operations: 288 Authorize a contract with Cayenta Canada, Inc. for five years of maintenance services for support of the Bureau of Environmental Services and Bureau of Water Works Customer Information System with the potential for an additional five year renewal (Second Reading Agenda 254). Gosh, the Office of Management and Finance, which is in the Mayor’s portfolio, approving a contract concerning Environmental Services (under Sam Adams) and Water Works (Randy Leonard, Commissioner-in-charge). Remind me again why we’re supposed to give the Mayor all the power, as the only way to accomplish sound financial practices and interbureau cooperation?

There are five “policy” and land use issues on the Agenda, that would still be considered by Council under the new Charter.

262 TIME CERTAIN: 9:30 AM – Accept the Master Plans for Whitaker Ponds Nature Park as a guide for future development and management of the park
263 TIME CERTAIN: 10:15 AM – Urge the federal government to seek positive diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States of America instead of escalating tensions
284 Declare support to locate a new Portland Archives Center at Portland State University
294 Place public areas of St. Johns Plaza in the jurisdiction of Portland Parks and Recreation for enforcement purposes (Resolution).

And on Thursday, March 22, 296 TIME CERTAIN: 2:00 PM – Appeal of Mount Tabor Neighborhood Association against the Hearings Officer’s decision in a land use case.

Under the proposed system, the Whitaker Ponds Master Plan would be presented by the Mayor, rather than Commissioner Saltzman. Maybe a Mayor can become expert in 20+ bureaus’ responsibilities, but my belief is the current structure allows Dan Saltzman to use his experience and training in environmental issues to help promote policies like a natural area master plan. Proponents of the Charter change may say that under the proposed system, the Mayor could still assign a Council member to head a project like this; however, without control of the budget or administrative authority over staff, I believe there would be less investment of the Council member with such an assignment. Who would be accountable if the project ran over time, over budget – the Council member nominally assigned to it, or the Mayor with the legal authority to trim the budget and hire and fire staff?

Under either the current structure or the proposed one, I’d like to see a report linked to an item like “declare support” for an Archives Center at PSU – what exactly is the City going to commit – Cheerleaders? Money? And how does “support” for this item rank in comparison with other city priorities… funding for play equipment in parks, for example? According to an article this past week in the Oregonian, “Moving the archives to campus would cost about $1 million more than expanding on the existing land, according to estimates. Building archives on a new site would cost more than $14 million.” So how and where does that fit into the budget discussions that citizens have been attending – hundreds and thousands of hours of participation and debate? Where does this resolution fit in that process, now or in the future … if at all?