Title: Charter reform
Author: David Yaden
Shipwrecked here on my island, it is a small group of people like me who believe Portland’s charter reform Measure 26-228 is flawed by weakening the office of mayor while also believing that the opponents of the measure, in their eagerness to beat it, will foreclose serious consideration of issues of representation and the potential to help heal our growing civic dysfunction. Nonetheless, here is a message in a bottle from the island; it comes in two parts, the second to follow in a few days.
I have argued that the unfolding campaigns for and against revision of Portland’s city charter (Measure 26-228) are symptoms of, not cures for, our civic dysfunction. Regardless of election outcome, how we get to an outcome may worsen divisions, distrust and dithering over festering problems.
In 2007 Portland voters rejected a charter reform measure to change the commission form of government. A close examination of that election, published in 2010, explains the resilience of the commission form of government in Portland and the failure of the 2007 measure to change it (“Portland: ‘Keep Portland Weird,’ Retaining the Commission Form of Government” in More than Mayor or Manager: Campaigns to Change Form of Government in America’s Large Cities, Georgetown University Press, 2010). Here are some relevant passages:
Portland’s commission form and the accessibility of city commissioners to citizens and advocacy groups appear to be a perfect fit for Portland’s civic culture. The willingness of Portland to trade off administrative efficiency for responsiveness at city hall is borne out by the high levels of public satisfaction registered in annual citizen surveys conducted by the city auditor.
Portland’s commission system has been a good fit for the liberal activist citizen professionals who have successfully used the system over the last several decades to put the city on the international map for innovative urban sustainable-development practices and high levels of civic engagement….The commission system deserves credit for being responsive to these changes in the citizen advocacy agenda that transformed Portland’s development in the 1970s and 1980s. There was strong community consensus that produced commissioners who largely shared the community’s vision.
How did Portland’s love affair with the commission form of government deteriorate to the current moment when we can’t wait a moment more to change it? The answer, it turns out, reinforces the point that I am trying to make about the collapse of our civic life. In explaining why it was Portland’s strong civic culture that made the commission form work, the authors cite both local scholar Steve Johnson and Robert Putnam from his classic book Bowling Alone:
Steve Johnson, a longtime activist who has undertaken the most definitive study of changes in Portland’s civic infrastructure, argues that the ‘‘exceptionalism of Portland’s civic life is one significant reason for the city’s reputation as a well-planned city with a lively downtown and a strong creative community.’’ But Johnson attributes this exceptionalism in civic life to ‘‘learned behaviors,’’ not to Portland’s form of government.
Putnam and his colleagues seem to be in agreement with Johnson’s observations about the connections between high levels of civic engagement and Portland’s successes on the urban development front, but they are more generous with respect to the role of governing institutions and leaders. They conclude that “while ‘there is no way to sum up Portland’s experiences of access and participation in a single formulation . . . many of the appealing things in Portland—the parks and open spaces downtown, the successful light-rail system, the thriving inner neighborhoods—are fruits of the cooperative work of government and citizen activists guided by a shared vision of a livable city in a healthy environment.”
Let me repeat what Putnam wrote: “cooperative work of government and citizen activists guided by a shared vision of a livable city in a healthy environment.” That is the hallmark of a healthy civic infrastructure. Public and private sectors; civic, cultural, educational and civic organizations; neighborhood and other groups—all contesting over public policy but also finding ways to rally around a “shared vision.”
The authors of the chapter about Portland’s 2007 election put it this way:
Perhaps one of the best ways for understanding the role of the commission form of government in Portland’s development over the last thirty years is to view the success as the result of a regime, not primarily the result of the form of government. We use the word regime to describe ‘‘the informal arrangements by which public bodies and private interests function together in order to be able to make and carry out governing decisions’’….it treats the commission as one of many key governing institutions within a larger array of elected officials and governing bodies working collaboratively with citizens, advocacy groups, and career public administrators to define a common vision and to transform this vision into an operational reality.
The commission form of government once worked because of an “array of elected officials and governing bodies working collaboratively with citizens, advocacy groups, and career public administrators to define a common vision and to transform this vision into an operational reality.” We won’t restore that by changing the commission form.
The really big question is what happened to “the exceptionalism of Portland’s civic life”? That story involves more than elected leaders and professional bureaucrats. Leaders and engaged supporters of foundations, educational institutions, cultural and advocacy groups, neighborhood associations—should get off the sidelines and start talking with each other about stewardship of the public square.
This is not kumbaya. There will always be fights, differences of interests and opinions. But there is such a thing as productive conflict that seeks to turn conflict into more than a zero-sum game.
Commission government isn’t core problem
In recent years, the commission form of government and lack of “professional” city management became the whipping boy for Portland’s drift into the city that doesn’t work anymore. It quickly became the most obvious reform target of the Charter Review Commission. I suspect that fact alone fed the belief that it is a root cause of our dysfunction. While eliminating the commission form provided a degree of broad-based hopeful expectation for the Commission, it became by the end a pack mule for the Commission’s real hope: an enlarged Council elected from multi-member districts using ranked choice voting.
In no way would I argue to keep the commission system. But I would temper expectations that changing it will get Portland back on the right track.
Look at the homeless situation. At the heart of that issue we find fundamental disagreement among stakeholders and division among local governments. They won’t disappear by hiring a city manager. I for one would be horrified if I thought an unelected administrator was charged with fixing what are, at root, political and civic divisions. Building coalitions behind directions, visions and agendas for managers to pursue, is the work of those we elect. It’s called politics.
Also take the recent example of the kudos showered on Commissioner Carmen Rubio for skillfully doing the politics needed to sort out the growing pains of the City Clean Energy Fund. Somehow she managed that despite the commission form of government. Indeed, she no doubt was helped by awareness that it was her responsibility.
No question about the need to improve city management. However, management is not governance. Governance is the process of politics and planning that results in setting broadly shared goals toward which management can be held accountable. (Interestingly, the charter review commission talks about “efficiency”—a management concept—rather than effectiveness—a governance concept about creating and pursuing a vision, North Star, programmatic umbrella….). In the past, in a healthier civic environment, we have had both good governance and good administration.
(For a deeper dive into what the Portland 2.0 project 3 years ago elucidated about governance, go here. Almost none of the 20 panelists in our day long session highlighted the commission form of government as central to needed reforms. The report of recent focus groups done for the Ulysses PAC that advocates for an alternative proposal states: “Voters’ top concerns about Portland were homelessness and crime, and related problems of drug addiction, lack of mental health services, and trash. Without prompting, none of the participants identified Portland’s current form of government as the city’s biggest problem.”)
Meanwhile, in the election to change the City Charter…
Nonetheless, we are in the middle of the election for M26-228, so what do the opposing campaigns say about how their proposal will help fix what ails Portland?
The first thing to note is that both sides are conjuring imaginary benefits and imaginary horribles about their respective proposals while hoping that if they say “we have to act now,” voters will conclude that what is at stake is action to fix a lot of what ails us— homelessness, public safety, affordable housing, mental illness, addiction….
Beyond agreement on getting rid of the commission form of government neither side makes a compelling case for how their proposal will suddenly overcome the divisions and disagreements among citizens, advocates, civic groups and governments that hamstring action on the problems that cause citizens to throw their hands in the air in despair and disgust.
Yes, getting rid of the commission form of government will help. But it’s not pixie dust. Both sides are motivated to over-promise and to sow doubt about the other side. That’s what campaigns do. We count on voters to sort through the arguments, the propaganda, the claims and counterclaims. Unfortunately, the public is in a mood to vote for pixie dust or anything that promises “change”—something other than what we are now getting from city government.
The latest set of results from the DHM polling firm published in the Oregonian says it clearly: “Near record share of voters believe city is on wrong track…. ‘The sour view of Portland could make residents more willing to embrace the charter reform measure on the November ballot,’ [DHM analyst] Horvick said. “ More importantly, the poll revealed that voters could easily move from supporting M26-228 to supporting the alternative proposed by the Ulysses PAC opponents of M26-228.
We head into the election with voters tugged between confusion and blinkered desire for change.
Who is at the table, what happens at the table
Proponents of M26-228 say that the main issue is who is at the table; fair, inclusive representation for people historically short-changed in Portland’s white, West-side comfortably liberal politics.
“Changing our city charter will give everyone more voice and more choice — including communities of color, women, workers, small businesses, and East Portlanders,” is the leadoff argument in favor of M26-228 in the voters’ pamphlet.
Thirteen of the 14 pro-M26-228 statements in the voters’ pamphlet prioritize or emphasize representation as the main reason for charter revision.
This focus was clear from the outset as the Charter Review Commission set out these “desired outcomes” to guide its work:
A participatory and growing democracy with more voices being heard in elections
An accessible and transparent government with Councilors who are easy to reach
A reflective government with Councilors who look like the community they represent
A responsive government with Councilors who understand your community needs
An accountable government with Councilors who answer to the people
A trustworthy government with Councilors who safeguard democracy
As evidence of exclusion from Portland’s governance, CRC noted: “Since 1995, 75% of Portland City Council members have been white men and less than 4% have been people of color. Communities of color make up 25% of the population in Portland and have been underrepresented for most of our city’s history.”
Opponents have responded: Look at Portland’s current Council with four members representing historically underrepresented populations. To which M26-228 proponents respond: one recent election does not demonstrate that the deep structural barriers against minority election have been overcome. They call on substantial evidence nationally that in places like Portland with historically disadvantaged voters that are widely dispersed, getting representation equal to their share of the population remains an uphill battle.
If the opponents of M26-228 are too quick to dismiss the Charter Review Commission concerns about representation, I believe there is a more troublesome flaw in the CRC proposal itself.
I earlier wrote: Because of its almost singular focus on diversity of representation — getting people a seat at the table — the proposed charter amendments give a backseat to governance — what happens at the table. Diverse and fair representation of those historically excluded is righteous and needed. And there is broad agreement that the commission form of government should be scrapped. The charter recommendations give too little attention to community building, governmental effectiveness and accountability.
Opponents of M26-228 have focused on this, saying that fair representation is important but so is government functionality.
Proponents of M26-228 attempt to deflect this vulnerability in the measure by now advertising it as “a more responsive and efficient structure that will better deliver city services.” They assert—again without much backup—that better representation and governmental effectiveness go hand in hand. Council members will become more accountable, it is argued, because they are elected from districts. Government will be more effective and transparent if a city manager is in charge.
I will explore the issue of representation and ranked choice voting in a subsequent post. For now I will just say that I think we can live with a larger council elected using the proposed “single transferable vote” method—if we also have a mayor strong enough to operate as a real check on the Council and as the leader responsible to and accountable to the whole population. It is a matter of balance.
I have written above why I believe we should not confuse efficient management with governance.
In sum, we have a dispute over what I call the relative importance of voice and vision, of who is at the table and what happens at the table.
For voters the choice, writ large, is whether you believe unfair representation is the main issue or whether it is accountability and functionality. Proponents of M26-228 argue, hollowly I believe, that proportional representation will deliver a better functioning government. Opponents argue, I believe too casually and from perches of “privilege,” that representation is not an issue (both sides agree we should have districts in order to insure better geographic representation).
Voters are also called upon to weigh whether they should vote for M26-228, even with its flaws, because otherwise, its proponents claim, voters cannot count on another chance for reform for another 10 years. They argue that the promise of an alternative measure for the May, 2023 ballot from Commissioner Mapps is an “empty promise.” However, proponents also find themselves in the position of arguing that voters can make adjustments in the M26-228 scheme after it passes. In short, you can have your cake and eat it too.
While I believe M26-228 should be defeated because it falls short of the basic requirement for effective and accountable leadership, I’m not ready to endorse the proposal of the Ulysses PAC for an alternative measure next May. As proposed, that will foreclose serious consideration of issues around representation and will issue forth from the city council without significant public process. Commissioner Mapps says that voters will get a chance to vote on ranked choice voting for council members as a separate measure. That’s fine, but the decision already has been made to use single-member council districts, so more extended consideration of the pros and cons of proportional representation is foreclosed.
It is political calculation that argues the only chance to change Portland’s government is the November election or next May’s election. A healthier, stronger civic leadership could figure a way to turn the election-forced choice of voice or vision into a more deliberate quest for voice and vision.