Author: David Yaden

Portland voters gave 58-percent approval to a radical overall of Portland city government, and City Hall has responded quickly by mobilizing for a smooth transition leading up to the November, 2024 elections. Looks good at the formal, governmental level.

At the same time, Willamette Week adds to my concern that the charter reform election may not be over, that both sides may be gearing up for a divisive rematch over implementation of the new regime.

Earlier I wrote about charter reform as a missed opportunity to deal with our civic dysfunction—the division, mistrust, irresolution, ineffectiveness, fracturing, citizen unhappiness—within our “civic infrastructure,” the public and private groups, organizations, institutions, people and practices that comprise our collective capacity to make and carry out big decisions and pursue big goals. When Portland has been successful, it has been the vibrancy, trust, optimism and engagement of this broader “civic infrastructure” that propelled us—acknowledging that even in those times, many were left out.

The transition action may now be in City Hall, but on the broader civic level, there is unfinished business and yet another opportunity—if we can get beyond the passions of the campaign.

Among charter reform supporters I hear: “What don’t you get about 58 percent ‘yes.’ That’s a strong endorsement. People want what was in the measure. It’s up to them—the losers—to get on board.”

From opponents: “Wait and see, it is going to be a disaster for Portland. They are risking our future.”

The level of mistrust that I detect suggests that the divisiveness of the campaign lingers on. One side, flush with victory, waiting for the other to concede defeat and become active helpers implementing the new regime. The other side asking why they should help build what they believe is a governmental structure that will collapse Portland before The Big One.

That divisiveness definitely is a disaster for Portland.

There always have been conflicts but seldom at the zero-sum, winner-take-all level that hamstrings us now. (For more in-depth on governance in Portland see Have We Lost Our Way )

Why should supporters of charter reform not take 58-percent approval as a mandate to charge straight ahead and ignore the plea that there is unfinished business? Two reasons. First is the proposition that we now have an opportunity to address our broader civic dysfunction and alleviate worries about a contentious transition process. Secondly, when it comes to some of the specifics in the reform measure, support may be softer than the margin of victory suggests; this means risk of backlash without further work to shore up support.

Based on poll and focus group results I have been able to review, Measure 26 started with a strong tailwind, voters eager for change at City Hall. Beyond this, there is evidence that ranked choice voting to choose winners in executive and single-member districts is popular, and there was near universal accord to get rid of the commission form of government. The array of groups lined up to support the measure was impressive, and can be persuasive in a contest in which voters are happy to have short-cuts through very complex issues.

I have heard some argue that there was a well-funded opposition campaign so the result should be taken as a solid and complete endorsement of the reforms. In my judgment, the opposition campaign was late forming, disorganized and unfocused. It was caught in the awkward position of promising change but only if voters turned down the change on offer in this last election.

In sum, based on how moveable poll respondents were among a variety of reform possibilities, it would be a reach to conclude they were firmly settled on all aspects of this very complex measure.

This is not to take away from the victory; just to temper enthusiasm for claiming a comprehensive, durable mandate. Definitely it should not be taken by opponents as warrant for staying on the sidelines to watch the new regime sink or swim. I take it more as a sign of the unfinished business and opportunity ahead of us.

There is a way if there is any will

For those who buy the proposition that a successful transition to the new charter requires more than doing the logistics laid out in Measure 26-228, more than fighting over who gets appointed to the citizen committees to draw election boundaries and set salaries, perhaps there is a way to begin to rebuild trust, to use the next few years to help rebuild the civic enterprise.

Not easy, of course.

It would require of the winners that they take seriously some specific concerns of their opponents. Mostly this is about engaging opponents with more than campaign rhetoric around what the new council structure and elections portend. This is discussion, not negotiation over changes.

For the opponents, they would need to accept that they have an interest in seeing the new charter succeed. This means, specifically, participating in how to make multi-member district elections work. They have little to gain by acting as sore losers. We are going to elect a new 12-person Council in multi-member districts using the single-transferrable-vote method. Only experience will determine whether that is a mistake. Why not give it our best shot?

To smooth the way, supporters of the reform measure should take seriously and engage with opponents on some questions and assertions that did not get the serious discussion during the campaign they deserve:

Correct for imbalance in policy making and political leadership

To create a package that might interest both supporters and opponents of Measure 26-228, there is one tweak, one change, to the new charter that I believe both possible and smart. As I have argued before, so much of the emphasis in the new charter has been on more equitable and inclusive representation—who gets a seat at the table—that we have not fully considered what happens at the table, how we go about crafting and pursuing the overall direction we want for the city.

It is the legislature (City Council) that debates and adopts policy. They give it the foundational legitimacy required in our democracy. But there is a critical role for the executive in policy-making. We look to the executive—mayor, governor, president—to see the big picture and point us toward broad goals. It is to those offices we look for a “state of the…” address and to be held accountable. It is the mayor to whom we look to speak to, for and about the whole city.

Unfortunately, the Charter Review Commission chose to put the mayor on the sidelines. Despite campaign rhetoric that the mayor will be powerful enough, the reality is that under the new charter, Portland will be the only one among the 40 largest cities with a mayor who has neither a seat on the Council, generally with vote, or veto of council enactments. (For more on this issue, see, Weak mayor, strong mayor, semi-mayor, mascot mayor…)

What this means is that Portland will begin 2025 with both an untested strong council system (which we should be working to see succeed) and an untested weak mayor position. In short a major imbalance in authority and accountability.

If there were agreement from both sides of the charter reform measure, I believe it should be possible to fix this, without disrupting the implementation schedule and process, with a simple ballot measure to give the mayor a veto.

To be clear, I would not expect supporters of Measure 26-228 to have any interest in this without the other side coming to the table to cooperate in a successful transition.

Restoring some role in governance for the mayor is important. Even more so is the prospect of seeing Portland rebuilding civic trust and becoming a little more united in finding common ground on some festering problems.