March 03, 2004
(Updated) Francesconi Delays Council Action On Park Exclusions
Commissioner Cites Need For Constitutional Safeguards
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
On this morning's City Council agenda was an ordinance which would make changes to the Portland's park exclusion law. We previously reported on the changes the ordinance would enact.
But when the item came before the Council today, Commissioner Francesconi pulled it from the agenda. "I've asked that this be reset for two weeks [from now]," Francesconi said.
Francesconi, the ordinance's sponsor, said that ths ordinance was scheduled before the recent court ruling against the City's park exclusion law, and that staff already had been working to narrow the ordinance before that ruling as well.
While explaining that park exclusions are a necessary tool because Multnomah County isnot prosecuting some offenses, the Commissioner added: "We have to increase constitutional protections."
"In it's present form," Francesconi continued, "it's not something I could support either." Left unclear was just why it was placed on the agenda at all, in this case. Our suspicion (we'll try to confirm this when we're down at City Hall tomorrow) is that once something is placed on the Council agenda, it cannot be removed until that session. If this is the case, it's possible that the ordinance simply was not ready to go by today's meeting of City Council.
Mayor Vera Katz, in reference to the ordinance and the court ruling, said: "We're not sure we can fix it all, and we may have to appeal the decision."
"I was thinking I was going to have to vote 'no' on this today," said Commissioner Randy Leonard. "I'm glad you're concerned about the constitutional protections."
"That's the part that alarmed me, too," Francesconi replied. "There are some specific hazards ... that are different from the fact of [this court case], and that's why we want to narrow this."
Some version of an ordinance to reform the City's park exclusion rules will come back before the City Council on March 17.
Update
As it turns out, agenda items can be pulled at any time. We spoke briefly with the Francesconi staffer who deals with parks issues earlier today. After several aggravating attempts to get him to understand that we we not asking about why the ordinance was pulled, he finally grasped that what we were asking is why, if even Francesconi could not support it in its current form, it was not pulled from the agenda prior to City Council's session. Despite the point of our question finally getting through, we still have no answer to it.
So while we applaud the Commissioner for pulling back the item in order to work on constitutional safeguards, we remain entirely perplexed as to why the ordinance in its current underwhelming state was ever allowed to remain on the agenda in the first place. That just makes things smell fishy. Which is unfortunate, because there may well be a completely legitimate reason why it was not pulled until Wednesday. But when someone who should know the answer can't seem to provide one... well, it makes us think. We're just not sure what it is we think yet.
Update
Okay, here's the word from Malik Bell, who handles parks issues for Commissioner Francesconi:
Most ordinances that come to Council, whether they are going to be pulled or not, have had prior notice, however it is always announced at the meeting. The commissioners will say, "I want to pull this back to my office." ... The reason why they do that is simply because they want a transparent way of letting people know what has been taken off and what has not.
Which makes sense, and is reasonable enough, although we're unclear as to why it took us the better part of a day to get that answer nailed down. For what it's worth, we should also point out that the Council Clerk's office did not appear to have advance notice that the ordinance was being pulled, at least according to a brief conversation we had in that office this morning.