The Tribune wins!

Today’s Portland Tribune publishes my Letter on Measure 26-90, proposed changes to the Civil Service chapter of Portland’s Charter. It even extrapolates my arguments to “Just say No to Charter changes” in the headline of the Letters page, which is excellent. I sent in my letter more than two weeks ago, and had not one but two confirmation communications from the Trib asking permission to publish it, soon afterwards. As each edition came out with a conspicuous absence of said letter, I wondered what was up. I’m glad they saved it until now, when perhaps marginally more people are paying attention. Let’s check the Election returns, shall we? Wow, a whopping 21,362 citizens, 6% of the electorate, have turned in their ballots already! Looks like that robust community conversation on the Charter changes really got everyone fired up, huh?

Anyway… the Tribune wins in my estimation for being the only citywide newspaper to urge a No vote on two of the four measures. The Trib urges No on 26-92 (on governance of the Portland Development Commission) as well as No on 26-91, Form of Government. The other citywide papers recommend three Yes, one No – although the Mercury did post a link to my denouement of their endorsements on Blogtown. As Stephen Colbert says, “Thank you, I accept your apology”.

Sadly, even the Tribune urges Yes on 26-89, stating, “It simply requires that the City Council convene another charter review group at least once every 10 years. That’s a vast improvement over the status quo. Currently, no review is required”.

And the reason that is a problem is…..? Do we review the United States Constitution at least every ten years? No! Why review the Charter at least every ten years? Don’t we have more pressing problems to fix in this city?

We voted in 2002 (note, at the GENERAL election in November of an even year) to remove truly outdated references on “whites” and “negroes” from the Oregon Constitution. But the current Charter Commission recommended leaving language in Portland’s Charter allowing “punishment of paupers”, and assigning to the Mayor the power to decided what an obscene publication is, and ban it. That language is in 26-91; a Yes vote on 26-91 affirms we want the Mayor to have those powers. How is the current process, taking Constitutional changes to the ballot in the primary election in the off-year cycle, “a vast improvement over the status quo”?

For those just joining the Charter debate, quick links to the actual language being proposed (which is not found on the ballot or in the Voters’ Pamphlet – how can voters choose what to change if they aren’t given the full proposals?), and links to my four posts with Three Reasons to Vote No on each of the measures, here.