July 22, 2004

'The item you've all been waiting for.'

Council Adopts Code Change, Rhetoric Over Charter Reform Continues

So proclaimed Mayor Vera Katz upon turning to item number 870 on Wednesday morning's City Council agenda. It was a sentiment echoed almost verbatim by Commissioner Dan Saltzman upon introducing his ordinance (pdf) to amend City Code to permit commissioners to introduce legislation regarding each other's bureaus.

But first, we must make you wait. Because somewhat related was the earlier communication to Council be one Charles E. Long, in which he asserted that Saltzman had "struck gold" with his proposal -- although he misidentified it as a Charter change, as did an email statement (pdf) out of Commissioner Francesconi's office earlier today.

"We need a change in the City Charter," Long argued. His proposed changes would include each commissioner running for office every two years, as opposed to the current four years. Commissioners would also be elected by districts, in which they must reside.

(Of course, an election for each commissioner every two years would mean, in essence, that 50% of their time in office must be spent running for re-election. If all the rhetoric about Charter reform turns out to be this ludicrous, perhaps we have nothing to worry about.)

We admit that one of our trepidations in supporting Saltzman's proposal was that it would -- especially when combined with the forthcoming debate over the Blackmer/Sten campaign finance reform package -- restart the rhetoric about changing the form of Portland's government. Long did his part to push this agenda, and it came up elsewhere in Council remarks about Saltzman's ordinance, which is why we've taken this brief detour into Long's communication.

It's been clear to us for some time that the renewed push for Charter reform was nearly imminent, which is why we recently defended commission government and why we will continue to mention it as the subject arises.

But leaving behind this digression, we return to the matter at hand.

Reiterating his comment last week that commissioners are not elected by district, but instead are elected citywide, Saltzman said that his resolution "speaks to what is the role of a City commissioner and a City Council."

"We've all bemoaned the shortcomings of the system," Saltzman said. In this case, he argued that his ordinance would help counter-act the so-called Silo Effect through which bureaus can fall into the trap of operating in a world unto themselves without recognition of or cooperation with each other.

He said that while the ordinance would change City Code, he beleived that the informal rule against legislating other commissioner's bureaus unless strictly necessary would remain in place. But he also called it "simply bad policy" for City Code to prevent "commissioners from weighing in on important matters."

Saltzman also pointed out that the ordinance "does incorporate a civility clause," requiring at least one week's notice any any potential cross-assignment proposals. In the end, he conceded, it "depends upon the five personalities up here."

"I don't think this change should shake the foundations of government or create chaose," he added.

For all of the attention this change has generated, Council cambers were nearly empty. Only two people had signed up to testify: Those ever-present Mandels, Irwin and Lili.

Among the Mandel's combined arguments: That commissioners already have the ability to weigh in on every issue by virtue of their vote on the Council, suggest changes, and propose amendments to items before them. That the pre-existing Code "prevents anyone from buying a ticket for an ego trip and dragging the rest of us along." That pre-existing Code prevents "self-aggrandizing and grandstanding." That the most important code is civility.

(Coincidentally, the issue of civility arose at BlueOregon earlier today as well. Go figure.)

"This is the first time," said Lili Mandel, presumably referring to the aborted Francesconi resolution which prompted this chain of events, "that anyone has tried these shenanigans."

Somewhere in the midst of this, Saltzman interjected: "I guess I struck out in my conversation over coffee last Sunday."

Commissioner Francesconi said, "We need to be able to fight for change and improve the City." He added: "This will make us a better City."

Commissioner Leonard took the opportunity to renew his call for districts, and said of Saltzman's ordinance: "This related to an interest of mine to make Portland more responsive and accountable." Actually, this may have been "responsible," but we're too tired to go check the video archive. But you have both possible versions, so the bases are covered.

He also argued that the proposal does not detract from the concept of checks and balances, adding that "a lot of us were surprised" that what Saltzman was proposing was not already present in City Code. This was something Saltzman himself had said last week, and something we continue to be very perplexed by, since if anyone should know what's in City Code, it should be the people elected to understand, enact, and enforce it.

Leonard then took aim at Mayoral candidate Tom Potter's stated intention to take all the bureaus into the Mayor's office for the first six months in office should he be elected. Leonard said he couldn't imagine Council members with no legislative authority whatsoever. "We would sit here and do what for six months?" (Saltzman's proposal, of course, would open the door for Council members having something to do.)

"The most important thing," he said, echoing the limited public testimony, "is civility." However, he added: "There has to be a system ... after we've tried everything."

Saltzman had no remarks, having already introduced the ordinance earlier.

Commissioner Sten cautioned that "resolutions brought hastily don't do much," and revealed that he almost brought two amendments, but decided against it. The first would have extended the required advance notice to two weeks, the avoid such cross-assignment legislation coming to the attention of the commissioner-in-charge and the public at essentially the same time. The second would have precluded personnel matters from this new cross-assignment authority.

Rather than moving these amendments, Sten simply offered these warnings into the record, adding that, "You can't legislate civility."

"I've thought long and hard about this as well," said Mayor Katz, explaining that the new authority could have either "little practical impact" or "fundamentally change relationships."

Katz also warned against piecemeal changes and floated the spectre of Charter reform: "We need to take a look at Charter reform in a holistic manner." However, she called Saltzman's proposal a "small piece" that she didn't necessarily think would create a problem.

She also expressed the concern that it was important for the Mayor to have certain powers in order for he or she to remain accountable.

"What really bothers me more," she said, "is that I hope it doesn't change the way Council members work with each other." She proffered the example of Council members cajoling (our term) Commissioner Saltzman to reconsider his vehement (our term) position regarding the Mt. Tabor reservoirs -- pressure which added to that already coming from the community and led to the formation of the recently-concluded independent review panel.

She also expressed concerns over the potential budgetary impact: "I have concerns that if this goes out of control, additional resources could be needed" to implement cross-assignment legislation, in which case, she argued, "we can't continue to be fiscally responsible." Her final comment, or at least the final one we captured in out notes: "Use the Code amendment judiciously.

All five Council members voted to adopt the changes to City Code. As an "emergency" ordinance, the changes went into effect immediately upon adoption.

Posted at 12:33 AM | PermalinkComments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
More In 2004 Mayoral Campaign, Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »