Portland charter reform and governance

Title: Charter reform
Author: David Yaden

This is a follow-up to my Portland 2.0 commentary, which you should read for the broader context in which this commentary fits, and for what I mean by “civic infrastructure.” You can also sign up there to receive subsequent newsletters.

In my Portland 2.0 commentary about the flabbiness of Portland civic infrastructure today, I noted:

There is enthusiasm and momentum for changing Portland’s form of government. It is about time. However, the enthusiasm should be tempered with recognition that changing the structure of city government will not be sufficient to rebuild a healthy civic infrastructure.

Voice and vision: In sum, as we work to get more voices heard, more people with a seat at the table, can we also find the vision, the sense of direction, that makes those voices part of building the shared community?

Measured against these standards the charter amendments proposed by the Charter Review Commission come up short. Because of its almost singular focus on diversity of representation — getting people a seat at the table — the 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.

But this is not all that is needed to get Portland working again. Without some changes, the charter review commission may not achieve all that it should. It may even fail to achieve its own narrow set of goals. And there is risk that voters may throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The charter recommendations give too little attention to community building, governmental effectiveness and accountability.

The recommendations and the “list of desired outcomes” give only a perfunctory nod to how reforms will help create anything remotely resembling a shared vision (or North Star, umbrella—call it what you will) that unites policies and initiatives toward building a broadly shared community of opportunity. Without this, we end up with initiatives and policies, each trying to fix something rather than building toward a common (i.e. broadly shared) goal.

Tim Nesbitt has written a smart column that alludes to this weakness in the charter reform recommendations, notably creating a weak mayor and an unwieldy council. He rightly points out that there is broad agreement to transform Portland’s outdated commission form of government and create a stronger administrative position to get all the City bureaus in harness, pulling together but that other recommendations would work against that. But he also points to weaknesses in the proposal that could get in the way of achieving that.

Ethan Seltzer former professor at Portland State University has as much experience as anyone observing and participating in Portland’s civic life:

Unfortunately, the Charter Commission is bringing forth a proposal within which no one involved in the governance of the city, the legislative policy making at the core of city government, will ever be elected with a citywide point of view.

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….).

Weak mayor, strong council = weak governance?

The commission wants a weak mayor. Ironically, in order to modernize Portland government, it relies on the ancient “separation of powers” doctrine that informed creation of the US Constitution:

The Charter Commission believed that Portland’s mayor needed to be given these responsibilities to create a more unified voice in city operations, more collaborative and cohesive responses, more consistent supervision of bureaus, and a political vision for the city. However, the Charter Commission also designed a system with checks and balances to address the concern that too much power concentrated in the hands of one individual would not serve Portland well.

(A footnote worth considering: the doctrine of separation of powers no longer works as intended at the national level, now serving mostly to hamstring government doing its job.)

While we need more debate over exactly what powers the mayor should hold, I am concerned that so much emphasis has been placed on keeping her weak. We should be wary of the thrust of the recommendations that wants to diminish one of the few offices where we can look for an overall program and to hold someone clearly accountable.

Consider this: we could elect a mayor using ranked choice voting who would truly reflect a strong and broad agreement on a direction for the city as well as the preferences of minority voters; more mayors from the east side. Yet that mayor would have limited capacity to advance a program as that function has been “delegated” in the new charter to the city council.

To those who argue the mayor could still try to persuade the council, that is no different from today except that the mayor does get to now participate in the legislative process.

With a better balance between mayor and council than is contained in the proposed revisions, using ranked choice voting for that office, we could end up with more equity and more effectiveness.

As a related matter, the recommendations potentially create a very fuzzy line of authority and accountability among with the mayor, city manager and council:

The city administrator will be under direct mayoral supervision. While the city administrator has independent power to decide what they think, in their professional opinion, is best for the city, the Charter Commission was deliberate in installing checks and balances. A mayor would share responsibility and political accountability for the duties of the city administrator by extension of supervising the position, subject to the legislative oversight by the city council.

A weak mayor, strong city manager and strong city council creates what could become a fraught household full of intrigue and game-playing.

The charter reformers handcuffed themselves by looking at the city primarily as an administrative structure, a collection of bureaus best overseen by a non-political manager. In this, they fail to fully appreciate the unique role of cities as incubators of innovation and ladders of opportunity. I say “fully appreciate” because the emphasis on equitable representation is timely and needed. But so is a deeper grasp of the city as an organic entity that requires seeing the forest as much as the trees, the whole as much as its parts.

From this it follows that they slighted the role of politics in creating the broad and representative coalitions necessary for a healthy and functioning polity.

In large measure we look to elected leaders with the broadest scope to help us shape and reach broad common purpose under which we can orient and judge various policies and programs.

The push to get rid of the commission form of government is largely driven by desire to see that city bureaus are pulling in harness. Yet it is not realistic to think that a large city council specifically elected to represent the interests of particular groups and areas will result a broadly shared vision, a harness, if you will, in which we can all pull together. (I feel the need to constantly remind that when I say “we,” I mean a broad and durable coalition that gets us past the divisions that hamstring us.)

A charter is no place for policy goals

For both mayor and city manager, the commission would include the following responsibilities (top of the list):

(a)  Advance the City’s core values of anti-racism, equity, transparency, communication, collaboration and
fiscal responsibility.

(b)  Advance the City’s efforts to mitigate the human-made climate crisis and prioritize environmental justice
initiatives.

I hesitate to comment on these for fear that it will be taken as opposition to those values. Nonetheless, I do feel strongly there are good reasons for removing them from the charter recommendations.

First, as worthy as any substantive goals might be, they should not be included in what is really a document establishing structure and process for governing. Goals change and they are contested. They may well end up being embedded in policies adopted through the legislative process, as should happen. But we have far too much regrettable history of such things being included in constitutional documents only to later be embarrassed by the cumbersome process of getting rid of them. Moreover, if we are to construct such a list, I might well argue for the pressing need to overcome educational disparities.

Secondly, the commission skates on thin ice by claiming these particular goals and values (worthy as they may be) as representing the will of the city. In part this is a consequence of the priority given by the commission in its membership and procedures to diversity of representation. To be blunt, it may get in the way of changing the commission form of government.

There are some other issues, including the merits and political risks of the proposed ranked choice voting scheme for city council seats, that I will take up in subsequent posts. These bear especially on how well a package of 14 very substantive charter amendment might fare at the polls. The commission should not be overly optimistic about prospects for passage based on the limited public opinion polling it has done.