March 19, 2004
Citizen Involvement Committee Hears Testimony On Public Process
Fails To Take Up Hastily-Conceived Resolution, Charter Amendment
Thursday evening, the Citizen Involvement Committee of Multnomah County took public testimony on the process question.
Also on the agenda were a resolution and a proposed charter change, brought forward by the CIC's executive committee, which were to be taken up following public comment.
Nearly all those in attendance were supporters of same-sex marriage and defenders of the County's process. Volunteers with Basic Rights Oregon were present, making available information about the Committee and talking points for those testifying. No comparable organized effort from the opposition was present.
"This is a slightly larger crowd than we usually have at our monthly meetings," said Chair Ken Ray as the Committee's meeting got underway. He gave a brief overview of the events surrounding the County's announcement on March 3 that it would begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and then waded into the controversy.
"Both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have raised concerns over the process," Ray said.
Saying it was the intention of the Committee to limit public comments to the matter of public process, and not to the issue of same-sex marriage (a restriction that inevitably failed to stick), Ray explained that the Committee was attempting to determine if changes needed to be made to the County's processes when it came to "significant and far-reaching decisions."
Beginning the public comment period (we'll only offer selected pieces here), Jason Evans presented testimony which is many ways echoed something he wrote earlier in the day.
Evans pointed out that many of the cries of foul when it came to the process came from individuals and groups -- Commissioner Lonnie Roberts and the Defense of Marriage Coalition, for example -- who were merely taking advantage of the process question to advance their true aims of subverting same-sex marriage in Oregon.
He was followed by Bob Richardson (Evans and Richardson were married in San Francisco before that state's Supreme Court put a halt to same-sex marriages).
"Civil marriage is a right," Richardson said, "recognized over time to apply to more and more people." Multnomah County's attorney, he said, "recognized -- and I stress the word recognized" that right for same-sex couples.
"Because this is a fundamental civil right," Richardson added, "it ought not to be put up to the public whim. ... Placing our civil rights on the public auction block [would be] outrageous."
Pressed to explain whether he would feel the same way about the process if it had involved a decision and outcome with which he disagreed, Richardson asserted that there is a distinction between types of decisions.
"This was not an issue of legislation," he said. "This was an issue of policy."
"It is within the discretion of the Chair to recognize rights," Richardson concluded. "When a decision is to recognize the rights of individuals where no one else is harmed, I'm okay with that."
"The original decision was a brave one," said Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod, from the staff of Love Makes a Family. "However, we do need to realize this is only the beginning of a longer public discussion."
Prescod also said that the hard work is ahead, because "there is a perception that some people were not included."
"It is my understanding that only a small group [was] involved in this process," he said. "As monumental as this is, the Commissioners would have been better served" with the involvement of more people.
(To our mind, some of Prescod's testimony came across as "sour grapes" at his organization being shut out, while BRO was involved from the beginning. Self-interested or not, we present his testimony in the interest of trying to reflect some of the nuances of what was said at the hearing.)
Prescod was followed by Bonnie Tinker, founder and Executive Director of Love Makes A Family.
Explaining that she in general has been a patient person on the issue of same-sex marriage, Tinker added: "That said, I believe that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is family violence."
(This angle was present in other portions of Tinker's testimony, and we admit to being a bit perplexed by the rhetoric of violence.)
"The decision Diane Linn made," Tinker said, addressing the process question, "did not require anyone else's participation."
Asked if the decision, despite it being "technically an administrative" one, would have benefitted from a public discussion, Tinker said, "I think it's alwasy easy to second-guess what would have been more effective. ... To have prolonged the decision any further would only have extended the damage."
Steve Wagenhoffer (intentionally or not) picked up one one of the BRO talking points for the evening. "This isn't gay marriage," he said. "This is equal marriage. ... What the Commissioners stood for is equality and justice."
Turning to the process question, Wagenhoffer added: "The process was lawful and it couldn't have happened any other way. This is a civil rights issue and as such they did the best they could."
Tiffany Harris, a Portland lawyer, testified specifically on the matter of the resolution and Charter change recommendation that were to come before the Committee later in the meeting.
Harris argued the timing of these two proposals coming before the Committee at this time would be seen not as a concern with public involvement as a general concept, but as "a rebuke of what our County Commissioners and County Chair have done recently."
"How refreshing," Harris said, explaining why it was important to not be seen to be rebuking the Commissioners for this particular decision, "to see elected officials take [their] oath seriously."
"If you adopt these things now, at this moment in time," Harris charged, "the message you're sending is [that] local officials should not take the Constitution seriously."
And Harris added a reminder: "If you want to rebuke public officials, don't vote for them."
"You need to be sensitive to the timing and the implication," Harris cautioned. "The message [can be] easily co-opted."
(We admit to being biased towards Harris' testimony, since it partakes of our own argument that making certain arguments or certain moves at a given moment can sometimes feed into the momentum of the greater opposition.)
"We are not talking about a decision, but about constitutional protection," said Susan Baer (recently married in Multnomah County). "I believe a decision on equal protection is not something that should be subject to public opinion."
Our notes fail to properly record the name of the next person whose testimony we want to mention, so we'll have to be satisfied with just passing along soe key quotes. This person pointed out that the "Constitution itself is a coutner-majoritarian document," that it "isn't about popularity," and that "fundamentally the decision point was a matter of constitutional law."
A member of the Committee pointed out that even liberals felt that the public had been left out of the process. "How productive would it have been," came the response, "to get people all riled up when it was a clear matter of the constitution?"
Keith Daly (who has made an appearance on this site) argued that a public process "would have allowed opponents to mobilize."
"I applaud that we have someone," Daly said, echoing the comments of others, "who is willing to take their oath seriously."
Bernie Lowenthal became the first person to testify in clear opposition to the process Multnomah County used to recognize same-sex marriage.
"I believe personally," Lowenthal said, "that what separates us Americans from the savage countries of the world is the Constitution and the rule of law. ... If we throw those away, we're in trouble."
"The question," he added, "is how do we insure that the rule of law is followed. I don't believe that it has been."
Explaining that he firmly believed that the Public Meetings Law had been violated, Lowenthal said that this indicated that supporters of same-sex marriage subscribed to the philosophy that "the ends justified the means."
(Stepping in again, we should point out that if this truly was an administrative or executive move on the part of Chair Diane Linn, as it appears to be, then the Public Meetings Law simply does not apply.)
Believing that the Commissioners did not obey the rule of law, Lowenthal said: "If censure is possible, then I think that they should be [censured]."
When public testimony came to a close, Committee member Jim Davis suggested that they put off any action on the proposed resolution and Charter amendment recommendation, "primarily for the reason of timing that was brought up."
"Whether to consider public opinion or how much weight to give it in their decisions is up to each elected official," the resolution reads in part. "But trust and support in a democratic government depend on decisions being made in the open with the opportunity for public review and comment throughout the process."
While a Committee member did move to adopt it, no other member seconded that motion. As such, the resoluton was not brought to a vote of the Committee.
One member agreed with Davis that "the timing is bad." Another suggested that demanding public involvement in a process that centrally was "between County Commissioners and their lawyer" would be "a very dangerous thing."
All that remained was to raise the matter of the proposed Charter amendment, which would change part of Chapter VI the the Multnomah County Home Rule Charter to read (new language in bold):
Shall execute the policies of the board and the ordinances of the county; Provided that the chair shall notify the four commissioners and the citizen involvement committee prior to making decisions of significant public interest. The board of commissioners shall establish by ordinance the nature and timing of such notification.
If adopted, this proposed Charter change would be forwarded to the Charter Review Committee.
But no Committee member made a motion to adopt, and so it too never was brought to a vote, leaving the ultimate fate of the two proposals (whose precise origins and motivations remain, at this writing, a mystery) before the Committee in doubt.
Comments (8)
Bob R. on 19 Mar 2004
First, kudos to Bix, who may have provided the only media coverage of this event.
My question is this: Where are the process detractors? What about those concerned liberals who are for gay marriage but sincerely believe the process used by the county chair was sneaky?
There have been two public meetings now where proposals to constructively change county policy would have been welcomed.
The first was the Charter Review Committee, last week. It was a very well-attended meeting, including a number of foes of gay marriage. But no one there proposed specific changes to the charter which would alter the process itself.
Last night, at the Citizen Involvement Committee, there was specific language to change the process, but the overwhelming testimony heard by the committee persuaded them to drop the issue (for now.)
There were exactly two people who spoke up against process, but had little concrete to say about the current proposals. Instead, especially the first speaker, they focused on alleged violations of the "rule of law" which they did not go on to identify.
These two meetings were prime opportunities to initiate process change.
But, at least to me, it appears that those decrying the lack of "public process" did not feel the issue important enough to come to a public meeting and speak out.
Maybe they find subcommittee meetings boring. But, to anyone familiar with process, that's where real work gets done. Generally, the full commission only votes on recommendations that have wored through the committees.
- Bob
Worldwide Pablo on 19 Mar 2004
Bob,
Only the folks who think the "process" was proper are still talking about it. What's the use? You really think the commissioners are actually interested in input or in changing their ways?
For these reasons, everyone else has moved on ... or is circulating recall petitions.
Bob R. on 19 Mar 2004
I knew I should have looked more carefully before making my media quip: The Oregonian did run an article today.
Link: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1079700955142430.xml
I now revise my statement to critique the lack of television media there last night. :-)
- Bob
Worldwide Pablo on 19 Mar 2004
Maybe they find subcommittee meetings boring. But, to anyone familiar with process, that's where real work gets done. Generally, the full commission only votes on recommendations that have wor[k]ed through the committees.
Bob, you're being ironic, right?
Jason on 19 Mar 2004
The irony is, WWP, that the harshest of criticisms come from the "arm chair activists", those who refuse to get involved in the process at any level.
Jason on 19 Mar 2004
The irony is, WWP, that the harshest of criticisms come from the "arm chair activists", those who refuse to get involved in the process at any level. Your whole argument is invalid. The public WAS aware, at least one week before the announcement, that Multnomah County's lawyer was working with commissioners on reviewing the existing State statute and it's standing under the Multnomah County charter and the Oregon State Constitution. I didn't hear a single peep, NOT A WORD, from anyone who felt left out of this process at all. ONLY WHEN an announcement was made that didn't settle well with the religious conservatives did Lonnie Roberts scream "clandestine meeting". He roused a loud charge against his commissioners for doing their jobs. The issuing of licenses to same-sex couples was not a change in policy. There was no policy at all to change. It was simply an understanding of constituional reading and seeing that the existing statute is "probably" invalid under that light. Commissioner Diane Linn has that duty ahd responsibility to examine the way they do things and adjust as necessary.
It's not unknow that Chairperson Linn is not a favorite, and certain people have wanted her out for a long time. It is my opinion that those who want her gone are seizing upon the media-fueled hype to try to oust her from her post.
If you don't like her, don't vote for her again.
Worldwide Pablo on 19 Mar 2004
Jason:
You are heralding a process that only last week you said was not necessary on matters of civil rights. So...process is good when it works your way, and bad when it doesn't?
How convenient.
PS: WWP has never voted for Diane Linn. His hunch was well-founded, it turns out.
Bob R. on 19 Mar 2004
Paul -
(I'm jumping in on your comment to Jason...)
We are now heralding a pre-existing and legitimate process for proposing charter amendments.
This is not in conflict with also heralding an administrative process in which the county attorney advises the chair and the chair makes procedural decisions.
Yes, it was one whopper of a procedural decision. But it was also following the advice of counsel and upholding the constitutional oath. And, as Bix has argued, is within the realm of past court thinking.
But I can understand those who respectfully disagree that the chair followed the correct process. As I posted here publically in the beginning, I had mixed feelings because the impression was given that the process was sneaky, even if it was legitimate under close inspection. And perception is reality in much of politics.
But, for all those who were loudly upset about the process, last night's meeting was the big chance to change the charter so that such a process could never happen again. And no one showed up who could clearly articulate a proposed change.
Based on the comments of the committee members, they were genuinely divided on this issue, and some openly voiced support under general principles for the proposed charter language, bad timing notwithstanding.
But in the face of overwhelming testimony against the amendments, they did not act on them.
Had a significant number of people showed up voicing support for process change, I think the vote could have gone the other way.
Regarding Diane Linn - It may surprise you, but I don't like Diane Linn at all. I didn't like how she handled the library director affair, and I thought her decisions regarding county employee pay during the storm were really bad politics, and those actions are likely feeding into the current drive to repeal the Multnomah County tax surcharge. I certainly would not have voted for her.
But darned if she hasn't gone and done a good thing now, and thoroughly confused the issue.
- Bob