AMENDS CHARTER: CHANGES FORM OF CITY GOVERNMENT.
QUESTION: Shall executive authority be transferred from Commissioners to the Mayor, and Council exercise legislative and quasi-judicial duties?
SUMMARY : The measure changes the structure of city government adopted in 1913. City Council members and Mayor currently share all executive, legislative, quasi-judicial and administrative functions. This measure distributes executive and administrative functions to Mayor and legislative and quasi-judicial functions to Council. The Mayor remains a voting member of Council, but does not have veto power. The Mayor prepares the budget, distributes work among offices, hires and discharges most employees, subject to civil service. Council adopts the budget and strategic plans, and exercises legislative oversight through investigations and hearings.
The measure authorizes Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to manage and coordinate city operations, administration and personnel, under supervision of the Mayor. The Mayor hires the CAO, subject to Council confirmation. The Mayor may fire the CAO.
Bureau directors are currently hired by individual Commissioners. The measure transfers responsibility for performance, including hiring and firing of bureau directors, to the Mayor.
The measure also changes the process for filling vacancies in City elective office. This measure is effective January 1, 2009.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
This measure is one of four recommendations by the 26 citizen-member Charter Review Commission.
The measure increases coordination of City services by centralizing City management in the chief administrative officer.
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 from outside experts in government studies and public administration; and
- A survey of comparably-sized cities.
What does the measure do?
Portland's current form of government was adopted in 1913. This 'commission' form of government combines the legislative and executive functions together in a five member commission. It requires that specific administrative responsibilities be divided among five elected City Commissioners, or City Council members, in addition to traditional legislative and oversight responsibilities. When elected, City Council members assume full time administrative roles as department heads of City bureaus.
The measure:
- Directs the Mayor, subject to City Council approval, to appoint a chief administrative officer to oversee the delivery and coordination of all City services and bureaus.
- Directs the City Council to oversee the budget, set strategic direction and policies, exercise oversight of City operations through investigations, committees and hearings, and provide constituent representation.
- Directs the City Council to retain legislative and quasi-judicial authority.
- Maintains a City Attorney appointed and removed by the City Council.
- Retains the Mayor as a voting member of the five member Council.
- Does not provide the Mayor veto authority over Council actions.
- Requires appointments of all bureau directors be approved by the City Council.
- Requires all appointments made by the Mayor be approved by the City Council.
- Maintains an independently elected Auditor and staff.
This measure replaces the current form of government where City Council decides public policy and administers City bureaus. It replaces the current form of government with a governing structure where the mayor is held accountable for a chief administrative officer who runs the day to day operation of the City and City Council members focus on setting policy, approving budgets, exercising legislative and quasi-judicial authority, and representing the citizens of Portland.
This measure if passed is effective January 1, 2009.
Submitted by:
Mayor Tom Potter
City of Portland
Measure No. 26-91 | 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*
Skye Bordcosh
Mahhew Aasen
William David Shepherd
Philip H. Lowthian
Carole B. Von Schmidt
Vaughn De Lorean
John L. Trachtenberg
Barbara J. Trachtenberg
Clara Padilla Andrews
Kris Hudson
Elmer Bancud
Sherry Fishman
Barbara Joan Hansen
Jamey Hampton
Bob Ball
James Vukanovich
Scott Andrews
Harry L. Newton
Kevin Kohnstamm
Andrew S. Estrada
Gale Castillo
Namrata Singh
Vera Katz
Debbie Kitchin
Kilong Ung
Bertha M. Ferran
Jacqueline Mercer
Claire Oliveros
Linda Castillo
David Kelleher
Janet Campbell
Patricia McCaig
Bernard V. Foster
Teresa M. Bliven
Grant L. Jones
Melissa Crawford
Sarah Shepherd
Becky Bilyeu
Herbert Hansen
Kevin Litle
Melanie C. Davis
Brieanna Wilson
Karin Hansen
Beverly Newton
Dana Estrada
Kyle Chown
Nichole Maher
Paul Meyer
Steffeni Mendoza Gray
Sen. Margaret Carter
Kyle Harrington
Linda L. Martin
Carolina Perkins
Robert Schmaling
Harold C. Williams
Allyson Spencer
Jackie Lowthian
Marta Guembes
Jay Clark
Bruce Harder
Michaela Bancud
Steve Oster
Maren T. Walta
Tom Walsh
Rodney Page
Scott Floyd
Tom Potter
James A. Meyer
Jason Lim
Jaime Lim
Lisa Naito
Shirley Minor
Madhusudan Ramachandran
Lauren Rhoades
Bob Strader
Carol Blanusa
Marie Lisa Johnson
* 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. 26-91 | 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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
IT'S ABOUT COORDINATION & ACCOUNTABILITY
AT CITY HALL
Streamline and modernize City government
Portland is the last big city in America where politicians still run huge, highly technical bureaus….with little or no experience. That's in part why taxpayers pay $2.8 million a year for the four commissioners' staff on top of bureau management costs.
Our politician--run bureaus promotes a duplication of services, erects barriers between bureaus and creates blind spots that produce disasters like the Water Bureau's $ 10 million billings fiasco and a tram that cost four times the city estimate.
"….then each commissioner rules over his of her collection of fiefdoms. Remember, each commissioner is a politician first, and usually has no expertise in any of those departments. No wonder other large cities reject this problematic scheme."
The Columbian, 2/25/07
"The city's form of government invests extraordinary power in each city commissioner, often at the expense of the city as a whole."
The Oregonian, 3/5/2007
The package of reforms proposed by the independent volunteer commission will:
- provide coordination between city bureaus;
- implement consistent administrative policies in all bureaus;
- bring more accountability and citizen oversight to city government; and
- deliver more efficient services to taxpayers.
"We have a good city but changing the form of government would make it even better."
The Oregonian, 2/5/2007
Please support Reforms 89, 90, 91, & 92.
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
WHY?
For years Portlanders have asked….
Why can't we do a better job coordinating City bureaus?
Why don't we have consistent administrative policies between City bureaus?
Why are we wasting taxpayers' dollars by duplicating services and personnel between City bureaus?
Why?
Because our form of government is obsolete and inefficient. No other large city in the nation still has politicians in charge of City bureaus. They just can't afford to.
Reforms 89-90-91-92 will end business-as-usual at City Hall:
- Increase coordination: Replace a system where the Water Bureau can withhold critical internal memos from other bureaus that foretold a multi-million dollar billing problem. The result? A $ 20 – 30 million billing fiasco that cost ratepayers.
- Increase accountability: Establish clear decision-making authority and hold managers accountable if they do not perform – and end the excuses that allow the price tag for the tram to go from $ 15 million to $ 55 million, and no one knows why or is held accountable.
- Increase citizen oversight: Finally bring citizens back into government. Establish citizen oversight to review how our government is working and make recommendations directly to Portland voters.
Citizen Inspired, Citizen Led Reforms
A package of reforms to bring more citizen oversight, accountability and efficiency to city government.
Vote YES on Reforms 89-90-91-92
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
POLITICIAN-RUN CITY BUREAUS—
WASTE MILLIONS
Duplication Costs Taxpayers
In our outdated, politician-managed government, City bureaus change hands every few years with new politicians….
And that's costing taxpayers millions.
In the last 6 years:
- the Water Bureau has been managed by 5 different City Commissioners;
- the Transportation Bureau has changed hands 7 times ; and
- the Sewer Bureau 6 times…in the last 6 years.
Each time a new politician takes over, the bureau lurches off into a new direction—the politician can hire, fire, move personal staff into bureau positions, conduct studies, approve contracts and leases, all without coordinating or communicating with other commissioners, the mayor or any centralized clearinghouse.
Politicians think our system is great, and so do the special interests that elect them….
But there's a reason every other large city in America has abandoned the politician-managed bureaus – it is just too expensive:
- Today we pay $ 640,000 a year to keep City-owned space vacant while eight different bureaus rent private office space.
- While that space remains vacant, the eight bureaus pay $ 2.5 million a year for downtown offices.
- Four City bureaus don't even use the City's payroll system.
- Two different bureaus paid for multi-million dollar studies at the same time on the same issue, and over the same piece of property.
Bring accountability back to City Hall.
VOTE YES on Reforms 89-90- 91-92.
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
IMPROVE COMMUNICATION AT CITY HALL
"Bureaus bicker (especially when their respective commissioners are at odds), and some bureaus, in effect, run themselves, creating blind spots and disasters…"
The Oregonian 2/5/2007
After 100 plus public meetings, 2000 hours of testimony, and 15 months of work, the volunteer independent committee concluded that Portland has outgrown our politician-run government.
They recommended a package of reforms designed to increase efficiency and accountability and give Portlanders a voice in improving City Hall:
- 89: Give the community a chance to review how the City is working every ten years and then let the community vote on the recommendations.
- 90: Streamline and modernize public employee regulations – eliminate outdated, confusing and conflicting rules;
- 91: Eliminate duplication of City services and improve communication and coordination between City bureaus. Allow experienced managers to run day to day operations, but hold them accountable for performance; and
- 92: Give the City Auditor more authority to conduct financial and performance audits on the Portland Development Commission;
"Just as a city needs experts running police, fire and other key departments, a city hall needs a competent, non-political, public administration expert running daily operations."
The Columbian, 2/25/07
VOTE YES ON REFORMS 89, 90, 91 & 92
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
More Community Access, Oversight & Representation
(Five Times (5X) More Access)
The independent Charter Review Commission's proposed reforms deliver:
- increased efficiency; AND
- more community access, representation and responsiveness.
Today, special interests take up too much time at City Hall. A neighbor with a problem, a senior with a question, a family confused about a water bill – we all have a hard time being heard.
Whether it is a problem with an abandoned car, too much traffic on your street, or you need to get the right permit to remodel your garage… you have to depend on the good graces of the one politician in charge of the City bureau to get anything done.
Reforms 89-90-91-92 change that.
An ordinary person could approach ANY City Council member for help. And all City Council members would have a stake in providing a response, not just one. The chances of getting something done are multiplied by five.
The package of reforms proposed by the independent commission puts the day to day management in the hands of experienced managers and allow City Commissioners to actually get out of their office and talk to real people about real problems in their community.
City Commissioners would have:
- the time to focus on people; and
- get out of their offices, be part of the community; and
- learn about the needs of all Portlanders.
That's the experience we desperately need at City Hall.
Vote Yes on Reforms 89-90-91-92
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
GIVE PORTLANDERS MORE OVERSIGHT OF CITY HALL
And Give Voters a Voice
Today the City Council decides when, or if, community members can review the document that defines how the City provides services. Under the current system any changes to the Charter must be approved by the City Council before being referred to the voters.
That's just not right!
That's why an independent volunteer committee has recommended bringing more oversight to City Hall and requiring community recommendations to be passed on directly to the voters.
Community Oversight
Reform 89 provides more community oversight by directing the City Council to appoint an independent committee of community members at least once every 10 years to review how the government is working.
Give Portlanders a Voice
Reform 89 creates a process that allows the community's recommendations to go directly to voters-- without City Council approval!
This recommendation is one of four reforms designed to increase efficiency, bring more accountability and provide you more oversight of City Hall.
IT IS YOUR CITY AND YOU DESERVE A VOICE IN IMPROVING IT!
Vote Yes on Reforms 89, 90, 91 & 92.
For more information: 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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
NO FALSE PROMISES
No new money needed to implement reforms.
(And ending duplication and inefficiency will save money.)
Rather than coming with their hand out again, this package of reforms will bring some common sense savings by making City Hall act the way the rest of us do who have to work within a budget, look for bargains and not spend money on things we don't need or already have.
Imagine a system where:
- We're not paying to have five different bureaus renting space in private buildings while a City-owned building sits vacant – essentially paying twice for everything.
- We're not humoring bureaus that want to run their own customized computer systems – costing all of us an extra $10-15 million every year.
- Bureaus aren't fighting over who owns what while they spend millions duplicating, studies on the same topic at the same time.
This package of reforms won't cost a dime in new money – but it will save us millions
Vote YES on Reforming City Hall – 89-90-91-92.
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
REFORMING CITY HALL IS NOT
FOR CAREER POLITICIANS
Portland city commissioners must suppress the urge to protect their political turf and instead allow voters in a May election to decide the fate of recommendations from a citizen-led charter review panel that considered how City Hall can best operate in the future.
Portland Tribune 1/11/2007
Local career politicians have been lining up to come out against the citizen-led reforms that will bring more oversight, performance audits and efficiency to City Hall.
That's no surprise. After all, an independent volunteer committee is asking voters if they would rather have skilled and experienced managers look after our City's resources. If the answer is yes, we will replace a system where politicians now exercise total control with no oversight or accountability.
- 89: Give citizens the power to determine what's working at City Hall and what's not, and vote on changes to make things better.
- 90: Modernize the Civil Service that protects our workers, eliminating outdated, confusing and conflicting rules.
- 91: Stop the duplication and waste among City bureaus that often don't cooperate or communicate with each other, and hold more managers accountable for their performance.
- 92: Give the City Auditor more authority to conduct financial and performance audits on the Portland Development Commission.
Twenty-six of your neighbors spent 15 months and held 100 public meetings to develop these recommendations.
Now you can make these reforms real!
Vote YES on Reforms 89, 90, 91 & 92.
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Portland ranked 37th out of 46 cities
in managing City finances.
As a small business owner on the Eastside, I know that watching the bottom line is crucial.
But, I am also willing to support quality services that make our City better – light rail, street car, clean water, parks and good schools.
These services make a difference to my business, but more importantly, to my family and our community.
I've reviewed the independent Charter Review Commission's recommendations to reform City Hall and believe reform is necessary if Portland wants to meet the needs of our growing population and protect our quality of life.
After 94 years, our government is outdated. It is not designed to meet today's challenges. It is inefficient, stifles communication, and limits coordination.
I have willingly supported increases in my taxes to pay for quality services. But, now it's time for City Hall to tighten its belt.
City Hall simply needs better management…more coordination and communication would help eliminate duplication and save money for needed services. The community proposed reforms do exactly that:
- 89: Give citizens the power to determine what's working at City Hall and what's not, and vote on changes to make things better.
- 90: Modernize and eliminate outdated, confusing and conflicting public employee regulations.
- 91: Stop the duplication and waste among City bureaus that often don't cooperate or communicate with each other, and hold more managers accountable for their performance.
- 92: Give the City Auditor more authority to conduct financial and performance audits on the Portland Development Commission.
I'm one of the hundreds of Citizens to Reform City Hall. I hope you'll join us.
Vote Yes on 89-90-91-92
(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. 26-91 | 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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
"THE SKY IS FALLING!.....THE SKY IS FALLING!"
"Oh No! Oh No! The Sky is Falling! "
The Sky is Falling # 1: The Mayor can fire the staff of the City Auditor.
The Facts:
"It is clear to me there was no intent to weaken the office of the auditor in holding city government accountable, either by the Charter Review Commission or the Mayor."
Gary Blackmer, City Auditor 3/16/07
"It is my recollection that the Charter Review Commission did not intend to make any changes to the Auditor's authority…..I don't recall any discussion of changing the Auditor's authority."
Linda Meng, City Attorney, 3/12/2007
The Sky is Falling # 2: The Mayor can sell park lands.
The Facts:
"The Charter explicitly requires – and would continue to require – that the Council (emphasis added) find the property is no longer needed."
Linda Meng, City Attorney, 3/12/2007
The Sky is Falling # 3: The Mayor can sell or lease public property with council oversight.
The Facts:
"I believe it would be a reasonable interpretation of the Charter to say that the Council (emphasis added) could set criteria or standards for what City property could be sold, including requiring that the Council make the determine of whether property is surplus."
Linda Meng, City Attorney, 3/12/2007
For more facts 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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
The League of Women Voters of Portland Urges a NO Vote on 26-91.
For nearly 100 years, Portland has operated successfully under the current Charter, our Constitution. Changing it should be done carefully and with maximum public participation.
Measure 26-91 contains questionable provisions.
- Transfers significant power to the Mayor and an unelected Chief Administrative Officer.
- Inadequate checks and balances on the power of the Mayor leave him/her with control over all bureaus and staff, yet continuing to vote as a member of Council.
- The Mayor would appoint all members of all citizen boards and commissions.
- The current Charter requires a 4/5 vote of Council for sale of city property. 26-91 eliminates that requirement.
Measure 26-91 was rushed to the ballot.
- The proposal was unveiled January 18, and quickly sent to the ballot on February 7 by a divided City Council.
- Proponents have not provided a clear explanation of the cost of implementing 26-91.
- Little consideration was given to improving our current form of government.
- Short timeline prevents informed and inclusive public debate.
- 26-91 targets an election day with likely low voter interest and turnout. May 2005 turnout was 16.91%.
Our current form of government is accountable, responsive, and innovative.
- Elected Commissioners are directly accountable to voters for their bureaus' performance and service delivery.
- Commissioners hire professional bureau managers.
- Commissioners develop and implement innovative programs within their bureaus. Portland is a national and international leader in alternative transportation, green building, and ending homelessness.
- Five elected Commissioners work directly with the community on issues we care about, reinforcing our city's culture of civic engagement.
- The Mayor assigns bureaus, optimizing each Commissioner's strengths and assuring sound management.
- Excellent candidates run for office because they have the authority to make a real difference.
Credible change requires a well-crafted proposal and broad public discussion.
Keep Portland's government accountable.
Reject Measure 26-91.
(This information furnished by Carol Cushman, President, League of Women Voters of Portland )
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Measure 26-91: Still a Very Bad Idea
Seven times over the past 90 years, Portlanders have voted NO on changing our successful commission style of city government – most recently in 2002.
Now, we are now being asked an eighth time. Once again, the answer should be NO.
In fact, this proposal is even worse than the others. Just some of the problems:
This Measure Puts FAR Too Much Power in the Hands of the Mayor
- If 26-91 passes, the mayor would be the only person in charge of appointing all of the city's boards and commissions. For example, a future mayor could stack the city planning commission with developers and other special interests, allowing them to wield too much power.
- Currently, the Charter requires a four-fifths vote of the city council and mayor to sell city parkland. This measure removes this requirement so that there is no council vote required for the final sale of city property. The mayor can make the final sale on his or her own.
Throughout history - including in the White House – we have seen that too much power in the hands of one person is a dangerous thing. Power in the hands of one is not accountable government.
This Measure is Costly
Measure 26-91 make government put too much power in the hands of one person, make government less accountable and open our city up to control by developers and other special interests. It will also cost us money . Estimates for the transition to this form of government start at $2 million every year, and may end up being much more. We have better places to spend the money.
Portland has become a model U.S. city because of its unique form of government. There is an old saying: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Measure 26-91 doesn't fix anything. But it could break the city we love.
VOTE NO ON 26-91
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Hi Portland Voter,
I'm Bud Clark. I was your mayor from 1985 to 1992. I oppose the proposed charter changes to Portland's unique form of government.
Our current charter is a major factor in the creation and maintenance of a livable city admired by people across the nation and the world. It's extremely flexible and adaptive to changing circumstances – ideal for the 21st Century. To change to a form used by many cities across our nation, who do not enjoy the livability we do, is a step in the wrong direction.
I campaigned for Mayor Tom Potter. I agree with most positions he has taken, but not this proposal . Our current charter allows Mayor Potter to take all the bureaus, as he did when first in office, and appoint a city manager. The proposed charter changes would do this by writing it in "stone," losing the flexibility and adaptability that has served us so well.
When I was mayor I considered taking all the bureaus and appointing a city manager. If I had done that, I would have lost the passion of my commissioners for work and innovation. To name just a few of their/our accomplishments: Mildred Schwab for the Performing Arts Center; Margaret Strachan for the Central City Plan; Dick Bogle for the heliport; Earl Blumenauer for recycling, traffic calming, and the streetcar; Mike Lindberg for park improvements and energy conservation; Gretchen Kafoury for homeless and housing programs. I focused on building the Convention Center and the introduction of community policing.
We accomplished a lot by setting goals and dividing up tasks. We did it together by consensus. Portland was recognized in 1992 by Ambac, an international insurer and financier of governments, as the "Best managed City of its Size in the Nation".
The "proof is in the pudding." Please vote NO to changing our flexible, adaptive, and innovative charter.
WHOOP! WHOOP!
BUD
(This information furnished by Bud Clark)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Charter Review Commission Members Urge No Vote
We were honored to serve on the Portland Charter Review Commission. After participating in hours of information gathering and deliberation we respectfully disagree that the Charter amendments on the May 2007 ballot are ready for voter approval.
- The ballot measure would significantly change the distribution of power in City government. Portland's citizens deserve a deliberate and inclusive opportunity to learn about this change. The decision to rush to the May ballot does not afford this opportunity.
- The proponents of the strong-mayor form of government did not demonstrate to us that changing the distribution of power in City government will make Portland a better place to live, work and play.
- The proponents of the strong-mayor form of government did not demonstrate to us that changing the distribution of power in City government would enhance citizen participation in government decisions or improve government responsiveness and accountability to tax payers' concerns.
- The Commission discussed many ways the existing form of government might be enhanced to promote efficiency, effectiveness and citizen participation. These alternatives deserve public discussion before amending the Charter to consolidate power under the mayor and a lead bureaucrat.
We voted against recommending an amendment to the City Charter to create a strong-mayor form of government. Please cast your vote for a great Portland and a better process. Vote no on 26-91.
Portland Charter Review Commission Members:
Jillian Detweiler
Ed Hall
Peg Malloy
Robin Plance
(This information furnished by Jillian Detweiler)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
TOP TEN REASONS TO VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 26-91
by
Jewel Lansing
Former Multnomah County Auditor (1975-1982) and
City of Portland Auditor (1983-1986)
Author, Portland: People, Politics, and Power, 1851-2001
10. Citizen access to City Hall would be dramatically reduced by shifting so much power to the mayor.
9. Portland is a model of urban livability for visitors from all over the globe. Our revitalized waterfront, vibrant neighborhoods, lively downtown, ever-growing light rail system, a "people's living room" at Pioneer Courthouse Square, and hundreds of miles of hiking and biking trails are the envy of other jurisdictions.
8. Just because we're the largest "big city" with the commission form of government doesn't mean it's not right for Portland. Trust your own eyes.
7. The mayor has plenty of power now – authority to reassign bureaus from his fellow commissioners, power of the gavel, preparing the annual proposed budget, access to the media, a bully pulpit from which to address to the public, and status in the eyes of the world.
6. This measure proposes major changes without enough time for study and debate. It is not ready for the ballot.
5. The new CEO and staff would add a costly layer of bureaucracy in city hall.
4. An 11-member City Club committee concluded, in 1989, after 26 months of study, " The prospect that Portland's city government could be dramatically improved by doing away with its present commission form is not bright enough to warrant the years of turmoil and uncertainty reorganization would cause ."
-- Article by Donald J. Sterling Jr., Oregonian , 5/16/89.
3. Portland voters already rejected similar measures seven times: 1917, 1926, 1927, 1958, 1966, 1974, and 2002.
2. Portland doesn't need a czar.
1. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!
(This information furnished by Jewel Lansing)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
DON'T THROW OUT A WINNING FORMULA – VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 26-91
Portland is a pretty special place. Thanks to involved citizens and a unique form of city government, we do a lot of things better here. Don't take our word for it. Here's what other folks say about our city:
- Best Place to Live in the U.S. – Men's Journal (April 2006)
- Best Walking Town in America – Prevention (April 2006)
- Best Cycling City in the U.S. – Bicycling (March 2006)
- 2006 American Society of Landscape Architects General Design Award of Honor to the City of Portland for the Sustainable Stormwater Management Program/SW 12 th Ave. "The best executed-example of this type of work we've ever seen." -- Awards Jury Comments.
- EPA 2005 Children's Environmental Health Recognition Award to the Portland Water Bureau's Lead Hazard Reduction Program
- No. 2 in U.S. for Sustainable Cities – SustainLane.com (June 2005)
- Top 5 "Impressive City" award for "communities where citizens are making a difference in their environment." – Delicious Living (April 2004)
- Partnership for a Walkable America's 2003 Pedestrian Project Award for retrofitting existing signals with audible signals.
- One of "five cities of the future." The Guardian , London (Jan 2003)
- "The city's neighborhoods have distinctive, lively personalities." -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Oct 2002)
- Portland is a vibrant, thriving and friendly urban destination." -- The New York Times (April 2001)
- Portland's Forest Park named "Best Urban Park" in the United States. -- Outside (Oct 2001)
- "Most Livable City" -- Money (Dec 2000)
- One of the nation's 15 hottest spots for new kinds of job growth. -- Time (Jan 20, 1997)
- No. 3 "best managed city in the U.S. – Financial World (March 19, 1995)
Now some people are saying our commission form of government doesn't work, that our city is in trouble. They want to change what has made it possible for Portland to be the "best" in so many ways.
We say you don't throw out a winning formula. Vote "NO" on Ballot Measure 26-91.
(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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Keep Portland government accessible, flexible and efficient
I'm a native Portlander. One thing I've always relished about my hometown is its accessibility; how easy it is to meet and talk with people. With three calls or less, you can meet and talk with virtually anyone.
Another reflection of this accessibility is our form of government. Not only are our elected officials accessible, you're talking to someone who is vested with responsibility and can make a difference. Portland's government structure requires only three votes to, or undo, anything; and one of these three does not have to include the mayor. This is a remarkably flexible and accessible system, and one that has served our community extraordinarily well.
But some say that we should throw out our system in search of more efficiency. They propose Measure 26-91 which calls for the consolidation of power under the mayor. That's a chilling prospect for our democracy and an invitation to special interests. The most efficient system is a benevolent dictator, however, this is not the system I would choose. There are ways we can improve bureaucratic efficiency without abandoning the system that has helped keep Portland unique among America's cities.
In his best-selling book, Better Together , the sequel to Bowling Alone , author Robert Putnam cites Portland, Oregon as an anomaly and example for the rest of America because of our vibrant civic engagement. He cites our "quirky" system of government as one of the reasons.
Rather than abandoning it, I urge my fellow Portlanders to appreciate the gift we've inherited, to reject Measure 26-91, and continue to work through our accessible and flexible system to build on our wonderful community.
Ted Gilbert
President, Gilbert Brothers Commercial Brokerage
(This information furnished by Ted Gilbert)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
WHY PORTLAND CITIZENS SHOULD SAY "NO WAY!" TO 26-91
- Portland is internationally recognized for addressing the issues that confound all urban places. This didn't happen overnight or by accident. There is no evidence our form of government is holding us back.
- Portlanders enjoy unprecedented access to city government – lost if 26-91 passes. All 26-91 promises is someone, maybe, to listen.
- The measure leaves council members dependent on the good graces of the mayor to get anything done.
- The measure gives the mayor the power to sell or lease public land with no council oversight. Imagine your neighborhood park accommodating a drive-thru because it's "good for economic development."
- The measure gives the mayor the unilateral power to hire and fire a new, highly paid city administrator, someone who will keep their job by serving the mayor, not the people.
- The measure allows special interests to easily control Portland politics
- The measure requires the council to plan, but doesn't require the plan be used for anything – a mockery of the planning and citizen involvement that makes community involvement respected and engaged.
- This measure creates a blank check for the mayor. How much will it cost? How much will it save? No data is provided to demonstrate any cost savings, or even that the measure won't actually make the cost of government more expensive.
- The measure claims efficiency by cutting citizens and the council out of decision-making, planning, and politics. If efficiency means greater distance between citizens and their government, then Portland has no need for this "improvement."
- This is a radical and unneeded measure. There will be no debate about merits, only an up or down vote. Once enacted, it can't be easily or cheaply fixed.
Making neighborhoods and citizens less important is not good for anyone. Save our "city of neighborhoods" by saying "NO WAY!" to Measure 26-91.
Ethan Seltzer
Sumner Sharpe
Margaret Strachan
(This information furnished by Dave Mazza, Committee for Accountable City Government)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Former City Commissioners Say Vote "No" to Giving Mayor Too Much Power!
Let's be blunt about it: Measure 26-91 is a terrible idea. It was a terrible idea in 2002 when voters turned it down, and nothing has changed. There is simply no reason to change a government that works!!
If voters fall for this shameless power-grab, here's what they will get:
LESS ACCOUNTABILITY
AN EXPENSIVE SUPER-BUREAUCRAT
TOO MUCH MAYORAL POWER
Portland's unique form of government is one reason why our city is such a great city. Why? Because five elected leaders have hands-on responsibility for leading city bureaus. That's accountability. But it's much more than that. Portland's city government, unlike most big cities, puts much of its effort into GETTING THINGS DONE , rather than just endless debate. Many special "Portland" projects have gotten done because of City Commissioners who advocated for and championed them:
Pioneer Courthouse Square & Waterfront Park
The Portland Streetcar
10-Year Plan to End Homelessness
Southwest and East Portland Community Centers
We don't have the space to list all the bad ideas that have failed because three commissioners had the political weight of past mayors, but if you go back in history, you can think of some really bad ideas. We didn't always agree on the City Council, but the energetic discussion and debate were spirited – and that's the way it should be!
Don't fall for this misguided and cynically mislabeled "reform."
Vote NO on Measure 26-91!
Gretchen Kafoury
Charlie Hales
(This information furnished by Charlie Hales and Gretchen Kafour)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Protect Portland's Unique Culture of Citizen Involvement
Vote NO on 26-91
The Commission form of government is one of the key contributing factors to Portland's history of active and successful citizen engagement.
Bureaus headed by elected officials are naturally more responsive to citizen complaints, suggestions and involvement. Don't shield bureaucrats behind a Chief Administrative Officer, one more layer of bureaucracy.
Portland's system of requiring three out of five Commissioners to agree to adopt policy provides multiple avenues of access for citizens. Don't put critical decisions in the hands of a single official.
Not only is Measure 26-91 trying to fix something that's not broken, it would throw out the baby with the bathwater! Citizen involvement is responsible for Portland's quality of life, strong and vibrant neighborhoods and spirit of innovation. Don't put all this at risk for what someone may claim is a more "efficient" form of government.
Keep Portland's government accountable and open to citizens. Vote NO on Measure 26-91.
- Chris Smith, citizen activist
(This information furnished by Dave Mazza, Committee for Accountable City Government)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
COMMUNITY MEMBERS SAY "NO" TO 26-91!
We live in this community. We are neighbors, parents, business people, former public servants and active members of our community who are committed to Portland. We think Ballot Measure 26-91 is a turn in the wrong direction.
This so-called reform of our commission-style government would:
- Place too much power in the hands of the mayor and an appointed chief administrative officer;
- Make our city government less accountable;
- Reduce our community's voice in important decisions for our city;
- Increase the influence of special interests;
- Stifle creativity and innovation with a new layer of bureaucracy; and
- Change a government that has made Portland No. 1 in so many ways.
Ballot Measure 26-91 is a turn in the wrong direction for our government and for our community.
Vote "No" on 26-91!
Jo Ann Bowman
Trudy Cooper
Susan Francois
Amanda Fritz
Ted Gilbert
Justin Gottlieb
Gretchen Kafoury
Jewel Lansing
Dave Mazza
Caroline Miller
Chris Smith
(This information furnished by Dave Mazza, Committee for Accountable City Government)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Hello Portland neighbors, we're Amanda Fritz and Dave Lister.
Last year, we ran for City Council because we love Portland.
During that race, we agreed to disagree about many things.
Like public campaign financing, for which Amanda was the first candidate to qualify. Dave chose private financing, because he thought there should have been a vote.
But now, you're being asked to vote to change our form of government to a "Strong Mayor" system.
And on this we agree. We are asking you to vote NO.
Do we want a Mayor with all the power over all city bureaus, and also the power to appoint all citizen committees and boards overseeing those bureaus?
Do we want a Mayor who can sell city property to special interests, without a 4/5 vote of the Council?
Do we want the Mayor alone to "make expenditures from the General Fund" for "assisting private industry and business enterprises in obtaining contracts" ?
Do we want to add another layer of bureaucracy, without knowing how much it will cost to hire more administrators?
And do we want to reaffirm and give to the Mayor ancient powers copied from the old Charter, including the power to "punish paupers" and "to declare from time to time what literature, books, papers, prints, pictures, films, advertising matter and other materials are obscene" ?
We don't think so. And we hope you don't, either.
Portlanders have voted similar proposals down seven times before.
This proposed "Strong Mayor" system gives the Mayor so much power, it would be like making President George W. Bush the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and giving him twenty votes in the Senate as well.
Would this proposed change make Portland better for its neighborhoods, its businesses, or its citizens? We don't think so.
Portland is a great place because the current form of government gives a balance of power.
Please vote NO on measure 26-91.
(This information furnished by Amanda Fritz and Dave Lister)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
VOTE "NO" ON 26-91!
Oregon Action urges you to vote no on Measure 26-91 . Portland's current city government works well for us and there's no justification for scrapping a successful city government.
Under our current system, Portlanders can reach out to their Commissioners and the Mayor and get their voices heard. Voter-owned elections create an even stronger connection between the public and government. This system is open and accessible – something that it won't be with an unelected city manager accountable only to the Mayor. Charter reform will limit Portlanders access to government.
Proponents of charter reform constantly remind us that Portland is the only major city with a commission-style of governance. If Portland were a failed city, that might be noteworthy. Instead, they are trying to fix what isn't broken. When cities are ranked on quality of life issues, over and over Portland is ranked among the top ten cities – and not just in America, but also in the world. If quality of life measurements indicate what form of government serves the people best, all those other cities should consider changing to our system.
We are in the top ranked cities for sustainability, environmental cleanliness, best places to have a baby, healthiest population, being well-read, best educated, best place to make movies, best for the arts and on and on. Frommer's placed Portland among the top 12 travel destinations in the world. Even more impressive, the European Institute for Urban Affairs ranked it among the 9 most successful cities in the world – the only American city to make the list.
The most common argument in favor of charter reform is that "everyone else is doing it." It's odd that adults, who would never accept that as a reason for anything else, trot out the average adolescent's excuse as a reason to change our government. That argument doesn't work with parents, it shouldn't work with voters either.
(This information furnished by JoAnn Bowman, Oregon Action)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Just as major corporations control the White House and
Congress, the Portland Business Alliance will control the
Mayor and the General Manager. Currently, this form of
government does not work for residents living in Vancouver,
Washington, where citizens have no voice in land use issues,
or how their tax funds are allocated for parks or road
improvements. For 80 (?) years, the City Commissioner form
of government has worked well for Portland . In 1970,
citizens stopped the Mt. Hood Freeway, and started the
Office of Neighborhood Involvement, to hold our elected
Mayor and Commissioners to a standard of transparency,
accountability and responsibility to the citizenry. Before we
throw the baby out with the bath water, ask yourself this:
Who will benefit financially from this change? With the
passage of 26-91, there will be no point in having an
Adjustment Committee where neighborhood association leaders
and immediate neighbors can appeal land use zoning issues.
Please join me in voting NO on 26-91.
(This information furnished by Mary Ann Schwab)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
We believe that Portland is a great city not in spite of our unique commission form of government, but rather because of it. As citizen activists, one of the things we treasure most about Portland is the ability to be heard and to see our concerns translated into on the ground action. We do not believe that Portland's unparalleled efforts to build livable communities, protect parks and natural areas, preserve wildlife, and promote a sustainable economy have happened by accident. They are a reflection of the concerns of citizens and the fact that we have a form of government that responds to those concerns.
The commission form of government can be messy and inefficient. That is the nature of democracy. We question whether the alternative, a "strong" mayor" form of government, would be any less so. However, we are convinced that citizen's ability to interact with decision-makers would be greatly limited. The Commission form of government means that there are multiple pathways by which to be heard and multiple voices at the table when the most important decisions facing our community are made.
When each commissioner is responsible for his or her portfolio and the bureaus within their charge, they have a vested interest in ensuring the city bureaus are responsive to the direct involvement of citizens. If Portland were to switch to a "strong mayor" form of government:
- Council members would have less accountability for the impact of their decisions.
- City Councilors would not be steeped in the details of bureau programs which would make it impossible for them to make informed decisions regarding bureau programs and their funding requirements.
- There would be no one who was elected by the public to act as an advocate for individual bureaus.
We're glad that Portland is not like other cities. Please retain the commission form of government.
Mike Houck
Urban Parks and Natural Areas Advocate
Bob Sallinger
Urban Parks and Natural Areas Advocate
(This information furnished by Bob Sallinger and Mike Houck)
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. 26-91 | City of Portland
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Vote NO on Measure 26-91
What's it about: Control of City Government
A NO vote – Small and creative companies, neighborhood organizations and individuals can influence change. It's about ideas.
A yes vote – Gives big business, lobbyists and moneyed interests more power and access. It's about the $$$.
Why should I care: My Government, My Voice?
A NO vote – Portland will continue on the right track. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
A yes vote – Portland will be on the wrong track. I MIGHT AS WELL LIVE IN CHICAGO.
What does 26-91 do: Consolidates power and eliminates Checks and Balances!
A NO vote – CONTINUES a system with multiple layers of checks and balances, creating an environment of dialogue. Five heads are better than one.
A yes vote – Creates a strong mayor and executive officer without any checks and balances. One person could screw things up royally.
Why 26-91 is so important: Portland's current City Charter has been effective for 100 years!
A NO vote – Continues Portland's long tradition of inclusive city government. Parks, Alternative Transit, advocacy, progressive ideas, need we say more…
A yes vote – Tosses out Portland's traditions. We don't know what will happen.
Why 26-91 is important to Business: Both Small and Large Businesses need access to Government Officials!
A NO vote – Gives every business, regardless of size and revenue, equal opportunity to have individual issues addressed by city Government. Government is open to everyone!
A yes vote – Puts access in the hands of a very few powerful and well-financed groups and organizations. Government is closed to all but a select few.
On behalf of other Portland small businesses and creative industries, I urge a resounding NO Vote on 26-91.
Sincerely,
Justin Gottlieb – Metro Media, LLC
For more information, visit TooMuchPower.org
(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.