Vote No on Measure 26-92

I’m skipping out of order in reviewing the proposed Portland City Charter changes, instead of posting on 26-91, because there is so little information anywhere about the other three measures. Citizens will receive ballots tomorrow, Saturday, or Monday (depending on where you live), and many will have only the misleading, superficial, and incomplete Explanatory Statements in the Voters Pamphlet on which to make crucial decisions about Portland’s Charter. Our Charter is our City’s Constitution. The proponents of changing it have not facilitated the open conversation they promised when rushing it to the primary ballot in an odd-year election. Misinformation has been given to the public at each of the forum events I’ve attended. It’s been a very disappointing and disillusioning three months – and I thought I was disappointed and disillusioned on May 17 of last year. Live and learn.

Top three reasons to Vote No on Measure 26-92, governance of the Portland Development Commission (PDC):

1. Charter changes, worthy or not, should not be made in off-year primary elections. Have you read the proposed Charter (pdf), the current Charter, and heard discussion from both sides on the PDC issue? If not, vote No. The current Charter sets the way our beautiful city has developed. Recent highlighted problems in a few decisions made by PDC shouldn’t overshadow the good work the Commission and its diligent staff have done over the 49 years since its creation in the 1958 Charter changes. Here’s my take: PDC currently does in Urban Renewal Areas what Measure 26-91 proponents say they want for the whole city – diminishing the role of the political agenda of five Council members, increasing the power of professional business experts and administrators to implement adopted City policy. I don’t know why 26-91 supporters also support this measure, but I can tell you on reason why I oppose both: the process and the timing of this measure is wrong. This is one change I might support in other circumstances, but I can’t now.

2. The Council currently has and does exert control over PDC. The question of balance of power has not been adequately reviewed and answered in this process. Councils and Mayors set the Urban Renewal Areas’ agenda, sometimes to the dismay of and contrary to the plans and goals of the residents and businesses in the areas. Examples include light rail in North/Northeast Portland, the recent 30% set aside for affordable housing, the entire South Waterfront/OHSU/tram package, etc. So it’s not true to assert the Council lacks oversight and policy direction with the current Charter. There is value in having an arms-length relationship between PDC activities and politics – that’s one reason PDC was created. Public-private partnerships require finesse and expert knowledge, with some level of trust that the public interest is being addressed. And in projects spanning 20 years or more, oversight from business experts not subject to re-election every four years can provide stability and improve bond ratings.

3. This measure gives even more power to the Mayor, if Measure 26-91 passes. It allows the Mayor to fire PDC Commissioners, which is not in the current Charter although past Mayors have asked for and received resignations from Board members. The proposed Charter says the Mayor’s appointments and firings are both subject to confirmation by the Council. That is not the same as the entire Council having the power to hire and fire PDC Commissioners. The balance of power being proposed is not clear (as with so many aspects of the four proposed Charter changes). It says the PDC Commission prepares a budget, but then that the Council is the budget committee. Does the Commission prepare a budget for the Council’s approval, or does the Council draft the budget which PDC can then adopt or reject? There’s a big difference.

Measure 26-92 takes a hit-it-with-a-blunt-object approach to achieve ill-defined goals, rather than operating with surgical precision to rectify discrete problems. It would be better to identify the specific policy and implementation actions of PDC needing reform, and fix them. The morale of excellent employees at PDC is already plummeting; many have already left, and further de-professionalizing and politicizing the agency will result in further loss of great staff. This measure will radically change the nature of the agency and the independent Commission. If this is the goal and what Portlanders want, that question should be asked and answered directly. It deserves public discussion, not this oh-yes-sounds-good measure that is being totally overwhelmed (as are the core values in 26-89 and 26-90) by the form of government debate.