Vote No on 26-91, No on all 4

The final post in the thrilling four part series, following Vote No on 26-89, Vote No on 26-90, and Vote No on 26-92.

Top Three Reasons to Vote No on Measure 26-91:

1. Constitutional changes should be made in a thoughtful, deliberative process involving a large number of citizens. Instead, proponents chose to rush four measures to the ballot in an off-year primary election, then structured the campaign with poll-tested soundbites by a half-dozen people making the rounds giving speeches, instead of multiple discussions involving the audience as well as campaign spokespersons.

2. The measure affirms the right of the Council to “punish paupers”, “prohibit the exhibition of deformed persons”, and to decide what is obscene and censor it. It assigns those specified rights to the Mayor. If the ballot measures are supposed to update outdated language, why are these horrible things left in and sent to voters for re-approval? Striking these “Special Powers” would have been Job 1 on my To Do list.

3. The Mayor has already admitted the Measure is flawed and will need fixing at the next election, if it passes on May 15. In a memo (pdf) to Council, Mayor Potter outlines the opinion (pdf) of City Attorney Linda Meng, which boils down to “oops, you goofed”. The measure inadvertently makes the Mayor the boss of all the employees in the Auditor’s office except the Auditor’s personal assistant – including the independent Ombudsman position which helps citizens negotiate problems with city staff… all also ruled by the Mayor if 26-91 passes. Inclusion of errors is probably because there was inadequate time for public review of the proposed language, and the Mayor and Charter Commission were in such a rush to get the measures on the ballot they barely responded to citizens pointing out mistakes spotted before the deadline.

In my opinion, there are unintended mistakes in all four ballot measures. When I’ve appeared at public events discussing the changes and pointed them out, proponents have wildly flipped through their copies to attempt to find the correct language – only to see it isn’t there. Deleting the Purpose statement of the Civil Service chapter is one example – or did they really mean we no longer want a fair system, and to strike that right from our Constitution? A proponent announced at a forum earlier this week that the proposed Charter Commission would be formed “once every ten years”. In fact, the language in 26-89 says, “at least every ten years”. There’s a big difference. We could have a continuous Charter Commission referring changes to the ballot every six months.

I perpetually ask the City Council to set priorities in spending our financial budget, considering the needs of the whole city. The City doesn’t have an endless supply of money, and should spend it where it will make the most crucial improvements helping as many people as possible. I believe the City should likewise prioritize and make good use of its budget of citizen participation time. The current Charter updates have taken time and effort away from determining the 2007-8 Budget, from Spring Clean-ups in parks, neighborhoods and schools, and from a multitude of policy and practical projects that need more community involvement. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on glossy mailers arriving in Portland households over the next two weeks. And to fix what?

The current Charter is well-written and does not need constant updating. The current form of government has served Portland well for nearly a century, is not broken and does not need fixing. The Civil Service cuts being proposed are not the Portland way. And the flaws in the first three measures don’t give me the confidence I need that the proposed changes to the core structure of the Portland Development Commission are any better.

Please vote No on all four measures with me.