Author: David Yaden
How Portland governs itself is about to be decided by a handful of insiders and an angry bunch of voters ready to throw the bums out. The insiders are busy reading their polls and focus groups to craft messages that push the right buttons of the angry outsiders.
The insiders consist of both the members of the Charter Review Commission and others
who are proponents of Measure 26-228 that will appear on the November ballot, and their opponents from the governing and civic elite. Charter commission members will surely object that they are not insiders. True in one sense, they are not elected officials. But they are mostly in some way deeply engaged in civic life as advocates or members of organizations. Not a bad thing at all. But also not a cross-section of Portland.
Meanwhile, a look at the leadership of the two PACs opposing Measure 26-228 reads like the index to a book about Portland’s politics and history.
This relative handful, on both sides, are honorable and dedicated citizens. They are sparring over some of the weighty substantive issues of charter reform, especially an enlarged city council elected from multi-member districts using ranked choice voting.
Unfortunately, in campaign mode they are mostly talking past each other while avoiding hard questions each should confront. Here’s a few I would like to see answered:
For the proponents of Measure 26-228:
You say that this measure will make government more “effective,” but give us no evidence, no persuasive argument, that a weaker mayor and larger city council will lead to anything other than more dithering and lack of accountability. If your answer is that we will have a “professional city manager,” my response is that you badly mistake our political and social dysfunction for a “management” problem.
Tell me in plain English how electing city council members with just 25% of the vote represents real democracy.
For the opponents of Measure 26-228:
You all have been in charge for decades. Suddenly you say, “trust us, we know a better way than Measure 26-228—with just a couple of simple tweaks to the city charter we will get this city back on the right track and make sure that the long-ignored East side and under-served communities get the attention they deserve.” Why should we trust something that comes out of a couple of focus groups and insiders with no real effort to engage the public? The rush to get an alternative on the ballot smells mostly like desperation to defeat Measure 26-228.
For both sides:
Granted that getting rid of the commission form of government should yield a more responsive, coordinated city government, tell me honestly if that has been the main reason why Portland’s overall governance and civic health is in such bad shape. Is that why voters are so grouchy? Is that why we are so divided and high-centered on the homeless issue, on public safety and police reform, on affordable housing…? Tell me exactly how what you propose will tackle those civic divisions and governmental meandering.
I will keep repeating: we need to get more people a seat at the table (voice) but we also need to make the table more than a babel, we need to consider what happens when we are at the table, to find common purpose (vision, if you will).
I don’t see that either side is committed to both sides of that equation of voice and vision.
Meanwhile, who knows what the voters will do in November. A recent DHM poll showed that people want change, and that they are fairly uncritical about what change.
In some ways this reminds me of what happened in 1990 when Oregonians passed Measure 5, the property tax limitation measure that has distorted Oregon’s revenue system ever since. It was a protest vote, a shout of “we’re not gonna take it anymore” without much regard for the full consequences of the measure.
Despite the heartfelt efforts of the handful of insiders working both sides of charter reform, are we going to end up amending the charter only to find out that voters are surprised and unhappy that governance did not quickly improve? And with even deeper civic dysfunction?