Geek Analysis : Power shifts

People deal with disappointment in various ways. I was discouraged that three of the four ballot measures passed on Tuesday, and spent my non-blogging time yesterday cleaning the bathroom, mowing the grass, and doing other such physical chores which burn off frustrations, increase endorphins, and have the happy side-effect of a neater home environment.

Another way I process problems is to allow my inner geek to dissect them. I spent yesterday evening working on this morning’s post, knowing I would be up early to take Ali to her Advanced Placement exams on Columbia Boulevard and then recovering from same until at least noon. After 25 years of working swing shift, ultra-early mornings leave me feeling like I’ve been whacked with a two-by-four. But several mugs of coffee/tea later, it’s time for that inner geek to spout a few final thoughts, then hopefully move on.

What happens now that 26-89, 26-90, and 26-92 passed, while 26-91 failed?

Those referring the changes to the ballot called them a “package” of reforms; let’s look at what we have now the main present inside the package has been marked Return To Sender. The way I see it, the main result is the exact opposite of that the Mayor and the majority of the Charter Commission hoped for. Portlanders just voted to strengthen the Commission form of government, giving more power to all five members of the Council. The new power is mostly evenly distributed, with only a few areas where the Mayor is given more authority. Citizens were net losers in the power shifts.

Here are the things I notice:

Measure 26-89, ongoing Charter review, doesn’t take effect until January 2009, and doesn’t seem to me to carry any unintended consequences with 26-91 failing. It references the entire Council rather than just the Mayor, its formation and functions being legislative in nature. More power for the Commissioners, compared with the recent process in which the Mayor chose the Charter Commission members. While 20 citizens will be given the power to refer more changes directly to the ballot, the rest of us are given one more independent entity to keep track of and lobby, and could be forced to do these ballot measure campaigns over and over at the will of 15 unelected people.

Measure 26-90, the Civil Service cuts, chopped out the section requiring the Chief of Police to have been an officer for ten years and put it in the language of 26-91. So that requirement is gone from our Charter. This means more power to the Mayor, who is now free to choose pretty much whomever s/he wants for the job.

26-90 assigns the right to decide which employees are protected as “classified employees” to “the recommendation of the person responsible for personnel issues, with approval of the Council by ordinance”. The current, soon-to-be-former Civil Service chapter listed the specific positions exempt from Civil Service protections. So this gives new authority to the Council to make these choices. More power for the Commissioners.

The current Charter and the new both give the Mayor the same right to appoint three Civil Service Board members. The current Charter allows the Mayor to remove members of the Civil Service Board, but in that case the Council chooses the replacement. The new Charter removes that nice check/balance – the Mayor can fire a Civil Service Board member then appoint a replacement. More power for the Mayor.

The current Charter restricts the use of temporary employees and requires reporting of their use to Council. The new Charter gives individual Commissioners the power to choose how much to use temps. More power for the Commissioners.

The current Charter allows bureau Directors to exercise some discretion in hirings and promotions, including consideration of apprenticeships and performance standards as well as objective tests. The new Charter removes these exceptions. Less power/flexibility for Commissioners, less opportunity for employment for citizens who don’t do well on written tests. Affirmative action seeking to employ women and minorities is gone from the Civil Service section of the Charter.

Moving to Measure 26-92, Portland Development Commission. It gives more power to the Mayor, with the authority to remove as well as appoint PDC members. It also gives more power to the other Commissioners, who previously did not have any say even in appointments and now will have to confirm both appointments and firings. Other than that, the whole intent and what voters approved was intended to give more power to the whole City Council and to the Auditor, and that’s what it does. Some power is taken from the Portland Development Commission members. Portland will be the only city in the state where citizens are not required to be part of the budget commmittee. Both are major shifts in power to the Council.

One immediate major outstanding question following the ballot measure results, is what effect the changes will have on candidates for the 2008 election. Neil Goldschmidt, Bud Clark, Vera Katz and others have shown the Mayor of Portland is already the strongest position on the City Council, and it remains so. Most of the changes in power I noted above that give more power to the Commissioners do so at the expense of others (employees, PDC members, citizens) – little is taken from the Mayor. While the office of Portland City Commissioner is even more important in the wake of 26-89, 26-90, and 26-92 passing, the role of the Mayor is still pivotal. I don’t see the ballot measure voting as a referendum on the people currently on the Council – Tom Potter and Randy Leonard as chief spokesmen for either side both did a good job of keeping the discussion on the structure instead of on personalities. If the results say anything about the current Council, they affirm that Portlanders are generally satisfied with the incumbents, since those voting were willing to give both the Commissioners and the Mayor more power.