AMENDS CHARTER: UPDATES AND CLARIFIES CIVIL SERVICE PROVISIONS

QUESTION : Shall City simplify civil service provisions, authorize Council to implement merit system, exclude certain policy-making employees from civil service?

SUMMARY : This measure maintains the City's Civil Service Board that is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The measure clarifies the merit system for civil service protected positions by replacing existing provisions with updated language and giving City Council power to establish, regulate and maintain the merit system and designate protected categories of persons. Details of implementation relating to job classification plans, recruitment, selection and promotions are removed from the Charter, allowing the Council more flexibility in implementing the merit-based system. The measure establishes a 21 day period for appeals to the Civil Service Board. The measure removes current provisions for temporary appointments.

The measure allows the Council, upon recommendation of the administrator for personnel issues, to determine that future employees in a classification with a major role in the formation of policy requiring exercise of independent judgment will be excluded from civil service protection. This measure will become effective January 1, 2008.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This measure is one of four recommendations by the 26 citizen-member Charter Review Commission.

It streamlines and modernizes the City's civil service requirements by eliminating outdated, conflicting and confusing language.

Background

In November 2005, Portland City Council appointed a panel of 26 Portlanders to take the first comprehensive look at the City Charter since 1913. This independent volunteer citizen committee – the Charter Review Commission – represented a wide range of ages, ethnicities, experiences and backgrounds.

To facilitate its work, the Commission held over 100 public meetings, collected information from a variety of sources including review of written reports, invited testimony from legal and academic experts, and public testimony, including:

  • Testimony from current and former elected officials of Portland and other municipalities, City employees, community organizations, neighborhood associations and other stakeholder groups and individuals;
  • Testimony of outside experts in government studies and public administration; and
  • A survey of comparably-sized cities.

What does the measure do?

After 14 months of study the Charter Review Commission found the civil service requirements confusing, conflicting, and outdated. The most recent amendments to some of these civil service requirements were nearly twenty years ago.

The measure:

  • Deletes or updates outdated language;
  • Requires an annual report to City Council from the Civil Service Board;
  • Requires the Civil Service Board to meet at least quarterly;
  • Provides a more flexible and adaptable structure for a merit based personnel system;
  • Standardizes the civil service appeals process; and
  • Allows for certain top level employees to be removed based on non-performance. This only applies to certain future employees.

The measure provides the City workforce with more current, consistent, and predictable civil service requirements and protections.

If passed, the measure will become effective January 1, 2008.

Submitted by:

Mayor Tom Potter
City of Portland


Measure No. 26-90 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

PARENTS, TEACHERS, ACCOUNTANTS, RETIREES, COLLEGE STUDENTS, PARKS SUPPORTERS,
SCHOOL ADVOCATES, CONSER VAT IONISTS, GRANDPARENTS, AFFORDABLE ACCESSIBLE HOUSING ADVOCATES, SMALL BUSINESSES, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS, COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS, SENIORS……

WE ARE CITIZENS TO REFORM CITY HALL*

Kris Hudson

Sen. Margaret Carter

Steffeni Mendoza Gray

Lisa Naito

Barbara J. Trachtenberg

Bertha M. Ferran

William David Shepherd

Michaela Bancud

David Martinez

Clara Padilla Andrews

Kilong Ung

Linda Castillo

Vera Katz

John L. Trachtenberg

Jacqueline Mercer

Bernard V. Foster

Carole B. Von Schmidt

James A. Meyer

Kyle Harrington

Barbara Joan Hansen

Michaela Bancud

Elmer Bancud

Jackie Lowthian

Paul Meyer

Kyle Chown

Bruce Harder

Dana Estrada

Philip H. Lowthian

Herbert Hansen

Sarah Shepherd

Kevin Kohnstamm

Maren T. Walta

Kevin Litle

Debbie Kitchin

Jason Lim

Becky Bilyeu

Beverly Newton

Carolina Perkins

Grant L. Jones

Harold C. Williams

Karin Hansen

James Vukanovich

Scott Andrews

Melanie C. Davis

Rodney Page

Bob Ball

Madhusudan Ramachandran

Lauren Rhoades

Andrew S. Estrada

Scott Floyd

Namrata Singh

Shirley Minor

Vaughn De Lorean

Skye Bordcosh

Melissa Crawford

Tom Walsh

Claire Oliveros

Linda L. Martin

Brieanna Wilson

Gale Castillo

Harry L. Newton

Tom Potter

Marta Guembes

Mahhew Aasen

Jamey Hampton

Robert Schmaling

Janet Campbell

Patricia McCaig

Jaime Lim

Steve Oster

Jay Clark

Marie Lisa Johnson

Carol Bianusa

Ben Davis

Nichole J. Maher

Teresa M. Bliven

* a partial list.

We hope you'll join us….

For more supporters go to www.ReformCityHall.com

(This information furnished by Kyle Chisek, Citizens to Reform City Hall )

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.


Measure No. 26-90 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Extensive Public Input

In November, 2005 a unanimous City Council appointed a panel of 26 Portlanders to take the first comprehensive look since 1913 at how the City was working. This independent volunteer committee spent 15 months developing their recommendations and held more than 100 public meetings .

These volunteers listened to over 2000 hours of testimony from:

• Current and former elected officials;
• Neighborhood organizations;
• Senior organizations;
• Minority media representatives;
• Youth organizations;
• City workers;
• Bureau directors;
• Academic and legal experts;
• Public administrators;
• Community organizations;
• Labor representatives;
• Auditors;
• Professional managers; and
• Community members.

The panel developed draft recommendations and presented them to more than 30 diverse community and neighborhood organizations for review and discussion .

All of the panel's meetings were open to the public and televised. The panel reported formally to the City Council 3 times throughout the 15 months in addition to meeting individually with City Commissioners. The panel's final recommendations were submitted to the City Council in January 2007 and referred to the voters.

Portlanders will have been discussing the need for these reforms for many years by the time they vote May 15 th .

And, these reforms are long overdue!

They are the first to be submitted to the voters in 94 years that include more citizen oversight, streamlined government, and increased accountability.

(This information furnished by Kyle Chisek, Citizens to Reform City Hall)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.


Measure No. 26-90 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

A MESSAGE FROM TOM POTTER

Real Reform at City Hall

Dear Neighbors,

Two years ago I campaigned for Mayor by asking for your help in changing how City Hall works. You told me about the problems you had in accessing City services. We've made a good start together, bringing a renewed sense of openness and transparency, and making City Hall more welcoming to everyone.

Now it's time to finish the job.

We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to adopt four reforms proposed by an independent committee of Portlanders that will increase accountability, achieve more efficient use of tax dollars, and bring more community oversight to City Hall.

I'm proud to support this volunteer commission's recommendations for real reform at City Hall. Their reforms include some of the most significant changes to our City since 1913. And, it's about time!

  • 89: Provide you the opportunity to review city government every ten years and allows the public to vote on community recommendations;
  • 90: Streamline and modernize public employee provisions – eliminate outdated, confusing and conflicting rules;
  • 91: Eliminate duplication of City services and improve communication and coordination between City bureaus by allowing managers to run City bureaus, and hold them accountable; and
  • 92: Give the City Auditor more authority to conduct financial and performance audits on the Portland Development Commission;

Reforming City Hall will take hard work, but that's what you've elected me to do.

I need your help.

I hope you'll help me bring more accountability and citizen oversight to City Hall by supporting Reforms 89, 90, 91 & 92.

Take care and thank you,

Tom Potter
Mayor

(This information furnished by Kyle Chisek, Citizens to Reform City Hall)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.


Measure No. 26-90 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Clean up Outdated, Confusing & Conflicting Regulations

Bring more accountability to Performance

In November 2005, Portland City Council charged a group of 26 independent volunteers to comprehensively review the City Charter.

After meeting for 14 months, holding over 100 public hearings and listening to more than 2,000 hours of testimony, a majority of the 26 members of the commission came up with four reforms designed to increase the efficiency and accountability of city government.

Streamline and Modernize the City's Civil Service Requirements

One of these reforms – Reform 90 – will streamline and modernize outdated language found in the City Charter's civil service language.

Establish a Flexible, Merit-based Personnel System

The measure will provide a more flexible and adaptable structure for a merit-based personnel system, rewarding more employees for their performance, not their tenure.

Require Annual Reports

Require the City's Civil Service Board to report to City Council yearly; meet at least quarterly; and review any administrative rules adopted or set to go before Council –helping reduce the use of confusing or conflicting language.

Increase Accountability

Provide greater accountability by increasing the number of top level employees that can be fired if they do not perform.

Vote Yes on 89, 90, 91 & 92.

www.ReformCityHall.com

(This information furnished by Kyle Chisek, Citizens to Reform City Hall)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.


Measure No. 26-90 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Streamline work rules that are too often outdated and cost the City time and money

Portland's Charter, which hasn't had a comprehensive review since 1913, is filled with Civil Service language that is old, outdated and often confusing.

It's time to modernize and streamline our Civil Service rules while maintaining protections for our rank and file workers. These changes will:

  • strengthen the reporting requirements of the Civil Service Board;
  • standardize the civil service appeals process; and
  • delete or update, outdated, confusing and inconsistent regulations.

Reform 90 also increases accountability by increasing the number of top level employees that can be fired if the do not perform.

A YES vote on Reforms 89, 90, 91 & 92 will:

  • update and streamline government;
  • provide more coordination among bureaus;
  • hold managers accountable; and
  • provide more citizen oversight.

Give citizens a voice in improving City Hall.

www.ReformCityHall.com

(This information furnished by Kyle Chisek, Citizens to Reform City Hall)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.


Measure No. 26-90 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 26-90

What they say is NOT what you will get!

To read the Explanatory Statement of Measure 26-90, it seems like it might be a modest "housekeeping" measure. They say the measure just "streamlines and modernizes the City's civil service" system.

Unfortunately, Measure 26-90 is another example of a measure that says one thing, and then does another. This measure's flawed language will harm the City government and the dedicated people who serve the public every day. What's worse, it locks these flaws into the City Charter.

According to a study of the measure conducted by the respected Portland law firm of Bennett, Hartman, Morris and Kaplan, Measure 26-90 is riddled with flaws – flaws with serious consequences.

Here are just two of them:

  • The most important element of a civil service system is fairness and public accountability. It is the regulations of the system that ensure that accountability. But Measure 26-90 REMOVES current public notice, comment and hearing requirements before adoption, amendment or repeal of rules and regulations. This change significantly weakens the public safeguards that ensure hiring and promotional processes are publicly accountable.
  • Measure 26-90 removes the current requirement that the City seek diversity in hiring. One way to prevent cronyism and provide better service is to have a workforce that looks like the public it serves. Removing this provision would be a step backwards – and one that doesn't respect Portland's values.

The Charter is Portland's constitution. It should not be changed lightly. And it certainly shouldn't have flawed language inserted into it.

It isn't possible to know whether these flaws are intentional or simply mistakes. But even if you would like to see changes to the civil service system, it is clear that these flaws have no place in our Charter.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 26-90

See the next Voters Pamphlet Statement for more of Measure 26-90's flaws!

(This information furnished by Mark Wiener, Portlanders for Accountability)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.


Measure No. 26-90 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

EVEN MORE FLAWS OF MEASURE 26-90

Measure 26-90 – which claims to simply "streamline" Portland's civil service system – has so many serious flaws they could not fit in a single Voters Pamphlet Statement.

Here are some of the other problems with Measure 26-90, as outlined by the respected Portland law firm of Bennett, Hartman, Morris and Kaplan:

  • Measure 26-90 changes the definition of "at-will" employees, creating a much lower standard for taking away someone's job. The Explanatory Statement claims to only affect "certain top level employees." But the new definitions are so poorly drafted and vague, that they could impact far more employees – making it more difficult to get the best qualified people for jobs that have a real impact on our quality of life.
  • Measure 26-90 removes the requirement that union-covered city employees choose between a union grievance procedure or a civil service appeal when they have a dispute with the city. That may sound boring and technical, but this flaw could cost taxpayers time and money by creating a confusing system that could create duplicated defense costs and conflicting remedies.
  • Measure 26-90 removes the requirement that temporary employees be hired on emergency, non-recurring basis, for a maximum of 5 months. This means that city managers could reclassify current permanent positions as temporary. What would that mean? Perhaps city managers could save some money by taking away people's health care or other benefits. But the services we rely on to keep us safe and Portland livable could be provided by temp workers instead of a skilled, stable workforce. That's not smart or safe. And in the long run, it would prove to be very expensive to all of us.

Don't put a flawed measure into our Charter!
VOTE NO ON 26-90

(This information furnished by Mark Wiener, Portlanders for Accountability)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Multnomah County, nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument.