Author: David Yaden
My primary disagreement with Measure 26-228, revising Portland’s City Charter, is that it weakens the crucial political role of the mayor to speak to and for and about the whole city; to be held accountable for “the buck stops here.” We need efficient management—an un-elected city manager—and we need a broadly representative city council to set policy and provide legitimacy for governmental action. But we also need a mayor we can hold responsible to see the forest as well as the trees, to explain overall, comprehensive proposals for addressing the big problems and opportunities.
Proponents insist that, in the M26-228 regime, the mayor is powerful enough:
Measure 26-228 will balance power between the Mayor and City Council.
The Mayor, elected citywide, will run the city’s day-to-day operations, with the help of a professional City Administrator. The Mayor will appoint that City Administrator and have the ability to fire that position. As in many cities the same size as Portland, the mayor will not serve on the City Council, but will have the ability to cast a tie-breaking vote if legislators cannot come to an agreement.
Let’s take a closer look.
In their intense emphasis upon “more voice, more choice,” i.e., who gets elected to the council, proponents really have little to say about the office of mayor. Reviewing all of the “arguments in favor” in the voters’ pamphlet, here is everything said about the mayor:
Balance power between the Mayor and City Council
Mayor supervises city administrator, so an elected official is accountable.
Components such as the hiring of a city administrator and clarifying the separate roles of the mayor and council are embedded in urban politics around the US
With all bureaus managed by a single City Administrator overseen by the Mayor, Measure 26-228 means working families can count on consistent, accountable governance and leadership
Streamlined oversight of the bureaus by a professional city administrator overseen by the Mayor will give us the effective government that we need to address the challenges our city faces.
Only 5 out of 14 arguments even mention the mayor, and those that do note only his/her role overseeing the city administrator. Before getting to the main point about how this ignores the critical political role of the mayor, consider what that oversight might comprise.
- Except for the police chief and city attorney, the administrator, not the mayor, will hire and fire bureau heads, arguably the most potent of managerial powers.
- The mayor does hire and fire the city manager, indeed a big power. Except that it is a nuclear option. The mayor might be unhappy with the performance of any number of bureau heads but cannot fire them.
- The mayor will appoint the administrator—with the approval of the council. (This is a powerful check on the power of the mayor.)
- The mayor can fire the administrator—but so can the council by vote of 9 members. (Again, a very powerful check on the mayor by the council.)
There is nothing wrong with any of this if you want a strong city council and strong city manager. It just points out that, in practical terms, the supervisory authority of the mayor may be less than advertised.
For me that is less important than the diminishing of the mayor as the political leader of the city. For all of the emphasis of Charter Review Commission on how a city manager would make government more efficient and remove silos—all good things—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. It takes conflicting and disparate aspirations and complaints and finds common ground. (The Charter Review Commission (CRC) talks about “efficiency”—a management concept—rather than effectiveness—a governance concept about creating and pursuing a vision, North Star, programmatic umbrella….).
While it is legislative bodies, including city councils, that adopt policy and give it legitimacy, do we ask the legislature or the city council to outline an overall, coherent program or to give us a “state of the city” address? Who do we ask to see the whole city, to hear the whole city, to speak to the whole city? Who do we elect to negotiate with the Governor or Chair of Multnomah County?
That is the role of the mayor, especially in a city where authority for management rests primarily with an unelected administrator. City manager government works very well in smaller cities. As we’ll see below, larger cities with diverse populations and problems and lots of conflicting interests find they need more than efficient management.
If you accept that premise, how does M26-228 stack up?
Some key organizational supporters of M26-228 are willing to admit that Portland does not now have a strong mayor nor would it under M26-228. Here is how Sightline Institute, advisor to the Charter Review Commission and now a supporter of M26-228, judged Portland’s current mayor position; their conclusion follows a list of powers mayors might have (the more powers, the more powerful):
Act as the chief executive officer, centralizing executive authority.
Appoint and remove department heads.
Assign council members to chair or serve on committees.
Appoint citizens to serve on advisory boards or commissions.
Prepare the annual budget.
Receive the annual budget developed by chief administrative official or city manager and make an annual report to the council.
Serve on the city council.
Vote in council meetings.
Have veto power over the council’s legislative decisions.
Oversee daily operations of the city, without interference from the city council or administrative boards or commissions.
Portland currently has a somewhat weak mayor, with the power to appoint and remove department heads and with a vote on council, but without veto power and without exclusive control of executive functions.
If we have a “somewhat weak mayor” now, with the mayor presiding over and having 1 of 5 votes on the Council, how strong would it be after the office is almost completely removed from the policy-making process? If M26-228 is adopted, “The mayor may submit policy proposals to the council but no longer sit on the council or have a vote, nor any veto.”
Proponents have argued that the mayor can submit policy proposals and use his/her powers of persuasion. Frankly, it’s hard for me to take that seriously. Start with the question of who is going to want the job?
As Mayor Wheeler observed, without a veto the mayor can find him/herself in the position of being held accountable to implement a policy that he/she believes is wrong or impossible.
Opponents of M26-228 have conceded that the mayor need not sit on the Council but have drawn the line on insisting that the office should have veto power.
Against that, North Star Civic Foundation, another prominent supporter of M26-228, has presented data that many cities do not give the mayor a veto. In a Fact Book about charter reform it reports:
In many US cities, mayors do not have the power to veto council decisions.
Only 39.4% of municipalities that responded to a 2018 Municipal Form of Government survey indicated that their chief elected official has the authority to veto measures passed by the city council (source)
41% of the 100 most populous U.S. cities have no mayoral veto. The largest U.S. city with no mayoral veto is Houston—the fourth largest city in the U.S. with a population of about 2.3 million people (source).
Looks pretty straight forward. Maybe veto power isn’t so important after all. However, consider some important background.
The survey of cities that is source for the first statement is legitimate and transparent, but the low response rate (32% of some 12,700 cities responded) makes it suspect for generalizing.
More importantly, Portland is the 29th largest city in the US, with a population of 660,000 in 2021. In the survey, out of 4,115 total responses, there were only 10 cities with populations over 500,000. So, to learn that “only 39.4%” of cities give the mayor veto power means we really are learning that very small cities don’t give the mayor the veto.
North Star also reports that among the top 100 cities, 41% do not give the mayor the veto, which means that 59% do give the veto. So the real comparison is 39% vs. 59%, all cities vs. larger cities for mayors with veto power.
Here’s the kicker for me. I used data compiled by North Star to find that among the 40 largest cities , there are 11 (not counting Portland) that do not give the mayor a veto. However, there is no city in the top 40 in which the mayor does not either or both sit and vote on the city council or have a veto. In all 11 cities in which the mayor has no veto, the mayor sits and votes on the council. In at least 3 of the 11, the mayor presides over council meetings.
Interestingly, San Jose, with a strong council-manager form of government, does have a mayor who presides over the council with a political role spelled out:
It is the intent of this Article that the Mayor shall be the political leader within the community by providing guidance and leadership to the Council, by expressing and explaining to the community the City’s policies and programs and by assisting the Council in the informed, vigorous and effective exercise of its powers. Political leadership shall be concerned with the general development of the community and the general level of City services and activity programs.
If M26-228 passes, as far as I can determine, Portland would be the only city of its size in which the mayor has almost no role in setting policy. The mayor does submit a budget proposal but the council amends and adopts the budget. To the extent anyone listens, the mayor can use their power of persuasion but has to take whatever the Council delivers.
Even North Star labels M26-228 a “system, including a ‘weak’ mayor with tie-breaker power, is used in several cities with a population similar to Portland….” All of the example cities are foreign.
(Note: I came down on North Star Civic Foundation above, an organization that I believe is a good and necessary part of our civic life. In this case, I think it is an example of what happens when organizations go into campaign mode and advocacy becomes paramount.)