May 31, 2004
Our Current Mayor, Our Wannabe Mayors
Katz, Francesconi, And Potter (Of Course)
Over the weekend, the Associated Press profiled outgoing Mayor Vera Katz and her reflections on her three terms in office here. There's nothing especially new in it, being in essence a summation of both positive and negative response to her tenure at City Hall. But it does contain this bit which will help lead us into another recent news item:
There has been a public outcry over the shooting by a police officer of an unarmed black woman during a traffic stop a year ago, and of an unarmed black motorist this past March. Grand juries cleared both officers. But the first shooting resulted in the resignation of the police chief, Mark Kroeker, and the second in an unusual public inquest by the Multnomah County district attorney.
"The police culture is contributing to this problem, as much as I believe Mayor Katz is responsible as well," said Dan Handleman, a founding member of the watchdog group Portland Copwatch.
Last Friday, the Portland Tribune published a Q&A with Mayoral candidates Jim Francesconi and Tom Potter about the Portland Police Bureau.
It discusses both similarities and differences between the two when it comes to Bureau priorities, and includes this:
Francesconi also said he wants to implement the vast majority of the reforms proposed by the Police Assessment Resource Center as soon as possible. The Los Angeles-based consulting firm last year recommended more than 80 changes to improve how the bureau handles use of deadly force. Many already have been enacted, including new regulations that apply to shootings in which an officer was involved.
The report also recommended creating a Use of Force Review Board, which would include citizens and review every police shooting and in-custody death. Foxworth has promised to submit a proposal to create such a board to the City Council in the near future.
Potter is not in the same rush as Francesconi, however. Although Potter thinks most of the recommendations are sound, he wants the public to weigh in on them first.
"I know Derrick is enacting many of them now, and I don't want to interfere with that. But I don't believe we've asked the public if these recommendations are what they want, or whether they want us to do other things, too," Potter said.
Which on the one hand is not entirely unreasonable, but on the other hand reveals a continuing point of contention with Potter's candidacy: While calling for community input, after all, is part of the proper Portland way, at some point a leader also needs to take stances of his own and have that be the impetus of that community conversation.
Which brings us to our third news item, that being today's S. Renee Mitchell column in The Oregonian. In this, the focus is on business, not on law enforcement, but a similar dynamic is at play.
After establishing that we don't really know all that much detail about either of our two Mayoral candidates, Mitchell offers this:
Up to this point, Potter's primary selling point has been: "I'm not Jim." But that cannot sustain his mayoral campaign indefinitely.
"With Tom, that's a big question," says Mercury editor Phil Busse, who came in No. 3 on the 23-candidate mayoral slate. "Tom has talked a lot about listening, and he's been saying that for almost nine, 10 months."
It's certainly no secret that that in the two-man race that remains after the May 18 primary, we're inclined far more towards Potter than Francesconi. But this lingering question about Potter's self-professed leadership qualities needs to be settled, at least some of the time, with answers beyond calls for community input.
After all, it can't possibly be the case that a Potter administration would begin with six to twelve months of community conversations and absolutely no policy decisions because those conversation haven't run their course.
Public involvement has been and should continue to be a hallmark of how Portland's government does business. But at some point, our leaders also need to step up to the plate and explain -- specifically and in detail what their own positions are on various issues, even if that risks alienating some voters.
Comments (4)
Pete on 31 May 2004
The question of when Tom Potter will stop hiding behind his "community input" blanket is all over the place right now. The Nose in WW asked when Tom will finally say something to define himself other than "Not Jim", Busse's recent Mercury "on my soap box" article wonders what's so different about the remaining candidates, and I've been overhearing this conversation at coffee shops and in line at the bank.
Why diddn't most voters seem to care during the primary race? Particularly the WW who endorsed Potter?
Not that someone having a draft plan/cocktail napkin full of ideas/platform or whatever means they're plan is right, but it at least gives us something to go on and hold them accountable to. Potter's political cowardice is not a promising sign of his self proclaimed leadership qualities.
The One True b!X on 31 May 2004
The question of when Tom Potter will stop hiding behind his "community input" blanket is all over the place right now.
Well, it was all over the place during the primary campaign, too. Although sometimes, especially in debate formats, it was subtle and indirect.
doretta on 31 May 2004
There are some high level policy issues I'd like to hear both our mayoral candidates say more about. I'd love to hear more serious thought from both of them about our tax structure, for example, in place of platitudes about "public-private partnerships" and "increased efficiency".
I think, however, that the "media drumbeat" during a campaign can be a highly unreasoning process.
I'm puzzled by the focus on Potter in terms of criticism about not being specific enough. I think it is absolutely not true that Francesconi is being any more specific than Potter is.
Check out the policy parts of both of their web sites. Francesconi Potter Sure looks like equal vagueness to me.
The media seem in danger of making that "the Potter issue", like they made "taking credit for things he didn't do" into "the Gore issue". It's a lazy-ass approach to reporting and I hope that isn't what's happening.
On the police front, saying you want to implement the vast majority of the PARC recommendations might sound nore definite than talking about consulting the community, but it hardly qualifies as more informative. Having listened to Chief Foxworth at the Chief's Forum, I gather that the vast majority of the PARC recommendations, if not all of them, will already be implemented by the time we have a new mayor.
A few of them may be controversial and there will certainly be other issues that need to be addressed, but in my view a candidate would be nuts to create and promote a complete police bureau agenda to that low level of detail without conversation with the chief, the community and the police union. You can't do that until you are mayor. It's to their credit that they both understand that and aren't trying to do it.
There *are* major questions about the police bureau a mayoral candidate should answer. "Keep the current chief or get a new one?" Potter gave his answer to that early on while Francesconi talked around it for weeks before finally seeming to indicate he'd also keep Foxworth.
"What model of policing do you favor and what is your role in making it happen?" Mark Kroeker used the words "community policing" but he didn't mean it. In reality he favored a very different, more quasimilitary approach.
I think both these candidates want real community policing but I think Vera did too--she just wasn't competent to make it happen. The press should be asking our mayor wannabes about their understanding of what community policing means and how they'd go about making sure that's what we get. The mayor will be *the* make-or-break player on that issue--he'll be one player among many when it comes to the details of the PARC recommendations.
Another question a mayoral candidate should be able to answer is which bureaus he intends to have under the mayor's office. Potter has said he'd keep the police bureau and ONI. Has Francesconi indicated which ones he'd keep? (Not saying he hasn't, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere that he has.)
Mikey on 01 Jun 2004
Wow, the Guardian picked up the story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4154638,00.html