July 24, 2004
The Policy And Politics Of The Potter Plan
Two Commissioners Step Through The Looking Glass
Friday's Portland Tribune included an interesting look at the intention of Mayoral candidate Tom Potter to take control of all City bureaus for his first six months in office if he's elected. It's a plan that's been known for some time, but this is the first major news treatment we've seen.
What's fascinating is what the article reveals about the stances being taken by members of the City Council. According to the Tribune: Commissioner Sten says it's a good short-term move but will be a lot of work; Commissioner Saltzman said it "might be rather daunting" but was willing to try the experiment; Commissioner Leonard says it "sends a bad message" and raises concerns over Potter's management style; and Commissioner Francesconi says it shows Potter's "inexperience."
Before we get into anything else, we want to examine the positions of those last two, because they are a little inconsistent, all things considered lately.
Keep in mind that Leonard endorsed Jim Francesconi for Mayor during the primary campaign. And for the sake of balance, we'll also mention that Sten endorsed Potter.
Here's what the paper says about Leonard's views on the Potter plan:
"It sends a bad message," said Leonard, who has endorsed Potter's opponent, Jim Francesconi. "All of us have to make our bureaus more responsive and more responsible and more accountable. I think before doing something like that he'd sit down with the other elected commissioners and see if we have a common agenda.
"To presume our message is in conflict with his makes me wonder about his management style."
And here is what the paper says about Francesconi's position:
"It shows his inexperience as to how the city functions," he said. "It's a recipe for paralysis. If you don’t involve the commissioners, you can't get things done. They're elected citywide, they have talents and they care about the city. Don’t run around them. You need to include them in the solution."
For some reason, the word "mindboggling" seems at least a little bit relevant here. Correct us if we're wrong, but wasn't it just recently that these very commissioners -- Leonard and Francesconi -- attempted to introduce a resolution regarding the Portland Police Bureau, doing an end-run around Mayor Katz who runs that bureau?
Leonard says Potter should "sit down with the other elected commissioners and see if we have a common agenda" -- something neither he nor Francesconi did with Mayor Katz. Francesconi says if you "don’t involve the commissioners, you can’t get things done" and you shouldn't "run around" the other commissioners and you "need to include them in the solution" -- also actions neither he nor Leonard did when it came to their Police Bureau resolution.
What the bloody Hell is going on here? And each of these commissioners has the gall to get all ruffled and rankled when people wonder about their motivations?
Let us explain something here: When your positions are utterly and entirely inconsistent from one moment to the next, obviously changing in order to suit the needs of your own self-interest... that's neither principle or policy. That's politics.
But let's go a little further into Potter's plan itself. First, the Tribune also revealed something we did not know before, since it was before our time as a Portlander: That Neil Goldschmidt did the same thing when he took office -- "solidifying his authority and demonstrating that things had changed," as the paper puts it.
Now, we're not yet quite sure what to make of such a move. That could be because we have doubts about the plan in and of itself. Perhaps we need to do some research about ow it functioned under Goldschmidt. Or it could be because Potter's relative lack of specificity as to what would be his vision as Mayor makes it next to impossible to have a sense of just what he'd do with all those bureaus in the first place. That's an issue -- a major one in and of itself -- that can only be resolved for us by Potter himself in the course of the general election campaign.
Further complicating both the policy and political aspects of the plan is that the City Council just this week adopted an ordinance which would allow any commissioner to propose legislation regarding the bureaus of any other member of Council.
In other words, Leonard and/or Francesconi could propose anything they wanted to regarding any bureau at all -- even if Potter holds them all in his own portfolio. We'd be interested to know whether either of them mentioned this to the Tribune (which included as something of a sidebar to this article a brief item on that very recently-passed ordinance), since it seems to be rather directly relevant to their professed concerns over the Potter plan.
So, as far as we're concerned, the jury is still out as to whether Potter's intention to control all City bureaus for six months will work, or whether it's a even a good idea in and of itself.
What's much less in doubt for us, however, is that Commissioners Leonard and Francesconi seem rather uninterested in applying uniform arguments across the board, even if it means directly contradicting themselves.
Further aggravating is the fact that in order for that sort of cognitively-dissonant, sleight-of-hand switcheroo to work, the public needs to be stupid enough to fall for it. We're not sure whether or not that's the case, but the commissioners in question seem to believe that it is -- and that's not especially comforting either.
Comments (39)
Randy Leonard on 24 Jul 2004
I think you need to get air-conditioning.
Amanda on 25 Jul 2004
Ask yourselves, Communique readers: Is the primary function of City Councilors to set policy, or to manage bureaus? And are city bureaus mostly staffed by intelligent, diligent people who strive to implement city policy set by Council, or are the staff all ignorant rebels who must be made to toe the line by the CEO?
Potter and Sten apparently believe Council members would still have plenty to do if their bureau supervision activities were temporarily put on hold. Each bureau has a Director with primary responsibility for managing staff and operational activities, so the work won't stop without daily oversight from the Commissioner-in-charge.
Potter's plan would allow the Council to concentrate on policy choices at the beginning of the new mayoral era. I think it's a great idea, that will encourage the new Council to consider policy goals outside the context of bureau/assignment turf battles.
pdxkona on 25 Jul 2004
This article was extremely well written and very clear. Thank you.
Colin on 25 Jul 2004
According to the article, not only did Neil Goldschmidt do it during his term, but Mayor Katz also did it during budget season. I am suspicious that any time we see Saltzman & Sten on one side of an issue and Leonard & Francesconi on the other that it's largely politics and not good government. Certainly I could be wrong, but the appearance isn't good. (Should I apologize in advance to Commissioners Leonard and Francesconi for the implication?)
On one hand, my feeling is that this is just normal election year posturing. Potter could say that he wanted to help feed babies and puppies and Francesconi would find something wrong with the idea. Anything Francesconi says until the election is over should be taken with an entire saltshaker.
On the other hand, it's very sad because we very rarely have candidates (for any office) brave enough to put detailed ideas into the discussion and to not just speak in empty platitudes. Potter happens to be infusing his campaign with ideas, while Francesconi seems to be going the "I raised enough money to buy this g*dd*mn seat, and I'm going to win no matter what" route. Like I said, it's just sad.
Sam on 25 Jul 2004
Uhm, is it just me, or is this site dedicated to pandering to Tom P? Am I the only one reading this that thinks this group has "drank the Kool-Aide?"
Whatever happened to independent and objective thinking? The analysis and at least one remark is, to be polite, a little short on thorough thought with respect to logical impacts and outcomes. What about stakeholders and their input into such a radical idea? Do we just elect a man who decides he will run the whole city without even consulting with the other elected commissioners and not give any consideration to the multitude of partners who are invested in the outcomes each bureau would be attempting to achieve? If we don’t care, why don’t we just get rid of the rest of the city council and just let Tom run the city?
Geeze. Silly me. I thought we were electing a Mayor, not a former police chief turned benevolent dictator.
Scott Jensen on 25 Jul 2004
I'm one who can proudly say he "drank the Kool-Aide?" (Potter Kool-Aide) awhile back. But, putting aside my bias for a moment..... Doesn't it make sense for the next Mayor to hold all bureaus in their portfolio for awhile? They can get a feel for what needs to be done, then delegate the bureau to the commissioner who they believe can best serve the city's interest?
Ok, Bias is now back until further notice! ;-)
Simp on 25 Jul 2004
What the bloody Hell is going on here?
Exactly. Just reading the quote from Francesconi made me start cracking up.
Pandering to Tom p? Maybe a question to be addressed. This post doesn't endorse nor condemn Potter's proposal. It is quite clear that it is simply a question of inconsistency in Francesconi's words and actions. It is not questioning the substance of the Potter proposal/
In context of Francesconi's attempt to implement "changes" to Portland Police policy, it is perfectly valid to observe the apparent inconsistency in the comment. A comment that is in my opinion, blatant politics.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
I would like to point out to Sam that I, at least, don't appear to be "pandering to Tom P" when I specifically note in the item my concerns over his "relative lack of specificity as to what would be his vision as Mayor makes it next to impossible to have a sense of just what he'd do with all those bureaus in the first place" and call that a major issue in and of itself.
Andy Hundt on 25 Jul 2004
I think Randy is right and Kona is wrong: B!x, you need AC. This article is more of a meandering, feverish rant than the polished analysis you have been producing so far.
We have central air at our new place, so you can borrow our window unit if that would help.
Duke on 25 Jul 2004
The word downtown is that Potter and Leonard did meet . . . prior to the publishing of the Tribune article. Anybody else hear this?
jon croix on 25 Jul 2004
So Tom Potter wants to take responsibility for all the bureaus.? From what I remember, he wasn't all that effective at running one bureau, the Police Bureau, let alone 15 or 20 of them.
Alexander Craghead on 25 Jul 2004
Heh. As if Portland Politics is about principle anyway?
An interesting point, though. A mayor in charge of all bureaus, and Commisioners able to propose legislation in any bureau. Correct me if I am wrong, b!X, but is this not simply another step towards a Council/Mayor/manager system?
Methinks the Commish system is on it's deathbed in Portland.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Andy, it was 73 when I wrote this. While the AC thing a clever line and all, there's no escpasing the fact that the rhetoric employed by Leonard and Francesconi about the Potter plan is diametrically opposed to the rhetoric and/or actions they employed in the two weeks prior to this Tribune article.
If it doesn't concern you that their instincts are to argue whatever position satisfies their political self-interest, that's not my problem. Although if voters share that lack of concern, it's certainly the City's problem.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Heh. As if Portland Politics is about principle anyway?
Yes, well, be that as it may or may not, it certainly doesn't make it right. Neither "everybody does it" nor "the voters elected us" excuse self-interest -- whether in rhetoric or action -- as an activity for elected officials.
Correct me if I am wrong, b!X, but is this not simply another step towards a Council/Mayor/manager system?
Sigh. Yes.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Since those who disagree with my assessment seem incapable of actually presenting alternative explanations for the obvious contradictions detailed above, opting instead to simply suggest I was suffering from some sort of heat stroke, let me flesh out my position even further, and see if they can come up with anything resembling an actual counter-argument.
Part of the basis for electing someone is the matter of just what it is they believe.
Discrepencies such as those described in this item make it difficult to determine what a candidate or elected official believes, because their arguments shift to supprot whatever position will benefit them at that particular moment, in that particular circumstance, without regard to any wider considerations or implications.
That adherence to scoring a political point first and foremost -- whether deliberate or instinctual -- inevitably gives rise to the contradictions which make politicians seem to slippery to voters. That political instinct -- and I suspect that in many cases it is instinct -- undercuts the necessary potential for voter confidence that cnadidates or elected officials have any interest at heart beyond their own.
If this reckless disregard for legitimate discourse about public policy is deliberate, then such candidates or elected officials are cynical manipulators undeserving of public support.
If, on the other hand, this reckless disregard comes from the fact that they "simply" can't help it, then it suggests that such candidates or elected officials suffer from the character flaw of being too much the political animal, and are therefore undeserving of the officers they either seek or hold.
It matters how politicians argue their points. To argue only from the standpoint of what buoys their political positions or aspirations damages the rationality with which we are supposed to conduct public affairs.
If anyone can demonstrate how what Leonard and Francesconi did with the Police Bureau resolution is not a direct contradiction of what they say in the Tribune piece, there is of course an open invitation to do so here.
But if the best that can be mustered are cracks falling just short of ad hominem attacks, then I suppose we know what sorts of people support these sorts of politicians.
Randy Leonard on 25 Jul 2004
B!X-
I am sure you must have just forgot, but I have cut and pasted the relevant exchanges between you and I in qoutes below that were posted on BlueOregon.com last week.
To summarize, I did talk with the Mayor and Chief Foxworth numerous times about the issues covered in the resolution proposed by Jim and I. Your suggestion that I was not consistent in what I said about Tom Potter's plan to take all bureau's for six months and my pushing for accountability by the PPB is absurd and you know it. I have, and most observers of city hall know this, been consistently outspoken about changes needed in the management of the police bureau...only to be met consistently with varying degrees of anger and irritation by the Mayor and Police Chief.
Tom Potter, on the other hand, has never asked me about any of my bureau assignments or the work I've done in the nearly two years I have been on the city council. He knows nothing, as far as I am aware, of the efforts I have made to make the bureaus under my portfolio more responsive and citizen oriented in the delivery of their respective services.
The following exchange comes from BlueOregon.com:
"For the good of the city, and no particular individual - there's a time for grandstanding and sticking your name all over this or that. It's after all attempts to work **with** the relevant parties, have failed. Personally, I have not been convinced that we were there yet. And NONE of the coverage of this issue has indicated that we were. The most affected parties were clearly invested in working with the Mayor and the Police Chief on this - in my opinion, because they really wanted a real, workable, solution to this issue.
This kind of conflates both the specifics of the PPB situation and the more general question of whether or not to give commissioners authority to "meddle." On the specifics, I'm not convinced that the process had broken down to the point that such "meddling" was required. But as to the larger process question of whether or not the authority should exist, I don't believe it inherently disrupts the balance of the commission form. It simply adds another tool to the existing "auditor signature" and "four-fifths agenda" tools which already exist to "bypass" the commissioner-in-charge.
I have little doubt that the tool is going to abused, probably in the relatively early period of its existance. But that too doesn't mean it's inherently problematic to have the tool in place.
Posted by: The One True b!X | July 19, 2004 07:03 PM
Ah, apparently my em tags to italicize what I was quoting didn't take. So, since it may be unclear, that first paragraph is meant to be a quote.
Posted by: The One True b!X | July 19, 2004 07:05 PM
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
So as to give readers an accurate picture of the facts, I want to clarify some of the comments posted above.
At the request of the Albina Ministerial Alliance, I met with Bishop Wells and other representatives of the AMA in the same time period as Commissioner Francesconi did. They presented to me the same resolution they presented to Commissioner Francesconi. Bishop Wells said that I, as a member of the Portland City Council, was "obligated" to respond to the communities request and introduce an ordinance that held the Portland Police Bureau accountable for their lack of responsiveness to the community.
I told them at our meeting that I had had a number of private meetings with the Mayor and Chief Foxworth regarding the issues they were concerned about and that I too was frustrated by the lack of responsiveness to the concerns that I raised that were, by and large, mirrored in the AMA's proposed resolution.
I reminded them I raised concerns at a city council informal meeting with Chief Foxworth where I criticized the police bureau's use of a taser on a 70 year old blind woman. Chief Foxworth angrily confronted me in front of the council chambers after that hearing saying for me to "never embarrass him like that again."
I reminded them that I had been advocating, publicly and in private meetings with Chief Foxworth and Mayor Katz, the creatiton of a labor/management system that would help create "buy in" by the officer on the street of changes I believe are needed consistent with the AMA's resolution.
To make a very, very long story shorter than it could be, I think it is fair to say my suggestions to the Mayor have been met with varying degrees of condescension and hostility. It has become clear to me that she did not intend to entertain any suggestions I made to improve the management of the police bureau.
Because of the Mayor's lack of response to the concerns I have raised, I cosponsored with Commissioner Francesconi the resolution now in question. I did so because I believed I had made every effort possible to communicate publicly and privately to the Mayor and Police Chief my ongoing concerns regarding the management of the police bureau.
To say I was surprised at some of the public pronouncements of the AMA after they made the presentation they did to me in my office is a vast understatement.
I am very, very sensitive to the Mayor's medical condition and I will continue to give her any benefit of any doubt with respect to her management of the Police Bureau. However, I must also balance my respect and concern for Mayor Katz with my obligation to do all I can to make sure that the public has the most professional police bureau possible.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | July 19, 2004 07:46 PM"
jon croix on 25 Jul 2004
By my estimation, the point of both Commissioners Leonard and Francesconi is consistently about not supporting one commissioner's ability to usurp all the power from the others. At campaign time, we end up asking each of the commissioners what they will do about schools, and police, and potholes, and our water bills, even though the reality is they will likely not be able to do much about any of them because the form of government does not allow it. I do not vote for one person to run the whole city, and neither should you. To do so is to vote for one person to run the city into the ground.
Imagine one person trying to manage the switchover of the water bureau billing system, the police bureau, the tram, the south waterfront project, the extension of the streetcar, the big pipe project, the City budget, the business license tax collections, and the city's affordable housing programs---even for just 100 days. Essentially what will happen is they won't get managed by 4 of our elected officials, and if there is a problem with any of them, the voters will not have anyone to hold accountable, except the Mayor, who they will understand has 20 other bureaus and projects under His authority.
That is not how Portland's form of government--good or bad--was designed to run. It is a distortion.
Potter's plan steals accountability away from the equation (as Leonard says) and to say Potter's plan is something that will foster anything but at best paralysis in 20 city bureaus for 100 days--is an example of "inexperience as to how the city functions" (as Francesconi says). On a single issue, Commissioner's may not work together, but if the general practice of the Mayor is to steal the authority of voters by usurping the power of 4 elected officials, Mr. Potter is either committed to achieving nothing during His tenure, or this is political posturing by Mr. Potter Himself.
In sum, your point was focused on the fact that both Leonard and Francesconi said some variation of “not working together” in response to Potters “plan”, but you leave out the bulk of what both were saying—which is convenient for your position in this debate, but nonetheless lacks balance. I don’t think it would be fair to say that either of them were seeking to fundamentally shift the power structure in city hall by “not working together” on the Police Resolution, but their point is that Potter is intending to make His entire plan, “not working together,” which any way you slice it is either a product of inexperience, or a product of politics.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
I'm running between the computer and cooking, so I'll come back to Leonard's comment in a little bit, but a brief remark about Jon's comment.
... you leave out the bulk of what both were saying--which is convenient for your position in this debate, but nonetheless lacks balance.
I lifted their statements of their directly from the Tribune piece, the ones I judged to be representative of what they were saying in that piece. I also linked to the piece itself, giving full access to the entire account for anyone who wanted to see it for themselves. So I can hardly be accused of somehow selectively presenting information on that count.
Secondarily, I copped to the balance issue by explaining that I haven't yet taken the time to give full thought to Potter's stated intentions. I went out of my way to express the possibility that it's either doubts about the plan in and of itself, or the fact that Potter's unspecificity makes it impossible to know what he'd do with all the bureaus. It seems a pretty fair and honest things to do to openly say, "I don't know about Potter's plan itself yet because I haven't sat down to think it through."
When my burger is done, I will come back and address the rest.
jon croix on 25 Jul 2004
To be clear, I did not say you didn't post their entire quotes. What I said was you focused on the part of their quotes that was convenient to your "inconsistency" position. And it turns out that your not having "taken the time to give full thought to Potter's stated intentions" is also convenient to your position in this discussion.
I may go have a burger myself!
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Continuing along, I will concede that the argument I present is stronger where it concerns Commissioner Francesconi than it does Commissioner Leonard.
However (and I perhaps should have brought this into the original item to make it clearer where I was coming from), I argued in an earlier post that the proper avenue for addressing the concerns over the PPB likely would have been to request a public briefing from the PPB on all of the things that have been doing, rather than for Francesconi and Leonard to strike out on their own with a resolution and an approach that gave the impression that the Bureau, and Chief Foxworth, were being unresponsive to community needs -- which was the implicit message of both the content of the attempted resolution and the manner in which it was handled.
That, then, was part of the mental context for me in my inclusion of Leonard in my criticisms. It should also be noted that until and unless I have characterizations of the conversations Leonard mentions above from both the Mayor and the Chief, neither I nor anyone else has any idea if Leonard's characterizations are accurate (at least two sides to every story and all).
As I've re-stated, my argument is that the content and manner of the attempted PPB resolution communicated the message that neither the Mayor nor the Chief were being responsive to the need to reform the PPB. Combine that with not simply asking the Chief to come and let us all know what he has been doing, and the effective result is two commissioner doing an end-run around other officials -- which is the very complaint the two commissioners in question raise against the Potter plan.
So, while I'm willing to say that out of the two commissioners, Francesconi is the most direct and obvious self-contradiction here, I still think there's an inconsistency on Leonard's part as well. Whether or nto one believes that depends in part, I guess, on whether or not one buys into my contention that there was a much more legitimate way to address the question of the PPB's rate of reform.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
What I said was you focused on the part of their quotes that was convenient to your "inconsistency" position.
This would only be true if their other quotes in the story somehow supported a different position. They do not.
And it turns out that your not having "taken the time to give full thought to Potter's stated intentions" is also convenient to your position in this discussion.
No, because this discussion wasn't about the merits of Potter's plan, but about whether or not the positions taken in relation to it by two commissioners made any sense given past statements and actions.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Oh, if anyone wants to see the full BlueOregon thread from which Commissioner Leonard quoted, you can find it here.
Betsy on 25 Jul 2004
Here's the problem I have with your argument - you're comparing apples with oranges, finding that - aha! - they're both fruits, and then getting upset because they're not consistently one or the other.
In the PPB case, Potter & Francesconi both waited for results from entities they'd been working alongside for some time...saw none (or not enough - so they thought), and acted accordingly.
The analogy here is the second and third baseman on a team watching the shortstop continue to bobble the ball (their perception, anyway) and wanting to move in to help prevent a loss without being penalized themselves.
In the Potter scenario, he's going to consolidate control upon assuming the position, without even the knowledge or experience (or, as Commissioner Leonard says, a conversation) to know what's been done, or what's the current SOP. It's like a brand new manager on a baseball team who wants to come in and play all the positions himself first so he can learn first-hand how they're done.
I'd be squawking too if I were one of the players being benched - particularly if I'm going to be judged later for the team's overall effort over the season.
Betsy on 25 Jul 2004
And - to make it clear - I've no allegiance to either Potter or Fracesconi yet, as I made clear in this cranky, unairconditioned post last week. And until I can hear Potter clearly articulate why he thinks his plan is such a great idea (sorry, the Trib article didn't cut it for me), I think it's a reason to think seriously about not voting for him.
Of course, I'm not so enamored with the other choice available to me either. Not yet, anyway.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Betsy: We see this differently because we don't share the same impressions/interpretations of the PPB resolution matter, I guess. You don't see it as an uncooprative endrun, whereas I do. If you don't see it as an uncooperative endrun, then you see different fruit. If you see it as an uncooperative endrun, then you see the same fruit.
I should find a different analogy, because that sounds like I'm calling the commissioners in question fruits, heh.
jon croix on 25 Jul 2004
You say we aren't discussing the merits of Mr. Potter's plan. But your position is rooted in the idea that because Francesconi and Leonard took the position they did on the Police Resolution, that their position opposing Potter's Plan because it includes "not working with them" is inconsistent.
How can you take that position if you haven't considered what Potter's plan is?
Certainly by saying that they are being inconsistent, you must do so on the basis that the Police Resolution and Mr. Potter's plan are similar creatures in some way, opening up the opportunity for a position on one issue to be compared to the other.
I on the other hand, see them as two distinct creatures. The resolution being an anecdotal, albeit public, example of Commissioners not working together, while Potter actually has worked to create a sustained plan to estrange His colleagues on the City Council. It is an amazing recipe for dysfunction.
So I don't believe you can take the position you have given the difference in magnitude between these two items. It is a stretch to suggest that Leonard and Francesconi were endorsing the chaos and sustained dysfunction contemplated by Potter's plan when they brought forward the police resolution. Which is why I felt it convenient for you to leave the reality of Mr. Potter's plan out of this discussion.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Oh, where to begin.
You say we aren't discussing the merits of Mr. Potter's plan. But your position is rooted in the idea that because Francesconi and Leonard took the position they did on the Police Resolution, that their position opposing Potter's Plan because it includes "not working with them" is inconsistent.
My position was that one cannot in one week do an end-run around another commissioner or commissioners (my impression/interpretation of the PPB resolution) and then a week or two later take a philosophical position against doing an end-run around another commissioner or commissioners (my impression/interpretation of the criticism of the Potter plan). The merits of the Potter plan are irrelevant for the purposes of that comparison. My position is that Commissioners L and F did an end-run around Mayor Katz. My position is that L and F assert the Potter plan is an end-run around City Council and that L and F believe this is bad. Whether or not the Potter plan is good or bad doesn't matter for the purposes of analyzing the actions/arguments of L and F.
How can you take that position if you haven't considered what Potter's plan is?
I never said we didn't know what his plan is. The Tribune article tells us what it is. I said I didn't know whether it was a good idea or a bad idea, or what he would do with it, or how he would manage it. But I never said I didn't know what the plan is -- because we've known what the plan is for months: He intends to control all the City bureaus for six months.
I on the other hand, see them as two distinct creatures. The resolution being an anecdotal, albeit public, example of Commissioners not working together, while Potter actually has worked to create a sustained plan to estrange His colleagues on the City Council.
Again, if we have differing interpretations of the PPB resolution incident, then we are going to have differing views on the matter of what I call an inconsistency. My argument stems from the premise of one view of the PPB resolution incident. I understand that not everyone shares my view of that incident -- and those that do not share my view will obviously not see a connection between that incident and L and F's philosophical complaint against the Potter plan.
So I don't believe you can take the position you have given the difference in magnitude between these two items.
For the purposes of the aspect of this which I was examining, the comparative magnitudes aren't relevant. Again, the point of my argument was that the philosophy of what I consider to be the end-run of the PPB resolution contradicts the philosophy behind L and F's criticisms of the Potter plan. It was the respective philosophies of each argument that I was examining, and considering to be contradictory.
It is a stretch to suggest that Leonard and Francesconi were endorsing the chaos and sustained dysfunction contemplated by Potter's plan when they brought forward the police resolution.
I have no idea what they were endorsing when they tried the PPB resolution. I only argued that the philosophy inherent in trying to introduce it -- which I consider to be "not working together" -- is the very same philosophy they attributed to the Potter plan which they oppose.
jon croix on 25 Jul 2004
Agree to disagree, except I would like to point out that the resolution was an end run on the Mayor and Potter's plan is an endrun on voters. Each commissioner represents the same voters. Taking Commissioners authority is a slap in the face to taxpayers and voters.
But I like calling them L and F. It is like Mr. Pink and Mr. White in the movie "Reservoir Dogs."
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Agree to disagree, except I would like to point out that the resolution was an end run on the Mayor and Potter's plan is an endrun on voters. Each commissioner represents the same voters. Taking Commissioners authority is a slap in the face to taxpayers and voters.
We do agree that that magnitudes are different. Although, since the Potter plan is public, it won't be an endrun around voters if they elect him.
Beginning slightly to edge into the merits question, the Potter plan certainly makes me uncomfortable, if only because I only just recently sat here defending commission government.
Regardless of the merits, it would be interesting to see what the Code or Charter says about this. Obviously, the Mayor is given the authority to parcel out the bureaus, but I wonder if it says anywhere that he must do so.
Curiously, if it doesn't say so, it would be as if we have a nascent almost-version of a mayor/council system already in place bured in the technicalities of our Charter and Code.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Here's a question someone or someones here will probably be able to answer for me: What process do Mayors usually use for the doling out of bureau assignments?
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Hrm. City Charter Section 2-302 Assignment and Authority of Commissioners, reads in part:
Does this mean that if elected, Potter will first have to assign bureaus and then take them all back?
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Oh, wait. That uses the word "department" not "bureaus," which is an entirely different thing in the Charter. Back to the research.
The One True b!X on 25 Jul 2004
Here we go. City Charter Section 2-301 The Departments reads in part:
So, yeah, I guess it can be done at any time. Hrm.
jon croix on 25 Jul 2004
Yes the plan is public, but it still end runs the voters, because on its face, it sounds sexy and like a shake up of City Hall. In reality, voters do not know enough about how the City operates to grasp the full impact of His proposal.
Its kind of like Measure 36 (the Son of Measure 7). The ballot title is very misleading, something like, "Government shall compensate voters when property values are impacted." or something very common sense like that. But the true impact will be devastating to land use, and a lot of what we in Portland fight for. Unfortunately, prevailing wisdom says Measure 36 will pass under these pretenses by a reasonably wide margin.
All I am saying is, the level of information voters will have when dealing with Potter's plan is not enough to construct an informed opinion. Ironically, with only the vaguest information on Mr. Potter's plan, voters who have been led to believe that Potter is the "public participation candidate" may actually end up voting to reduce all citizens' influence on the day to day operation of the City by significantly limiting the authority of 4 out of 5 Commissioners.
Marko on 26 Jul 2004
It seems like Leonard is taking Potter's proposal as a personal attack. Didn't Potter and Leonard get sideways with each other over all the flap at the bureau of neighborhood associations? It seems a little inconsistent to me that Leonard is okay dishing it out when it comes to other peoples bureaus, but can't take it himself. To his credit, though, he seems to be fighting it out on all fronts. I'm glad that he at least takes the time to post his views here, though I wish everything didn't have to be Randy Leonard vs. the world.
Francesconi, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a genuine bone in his body. Everything he says comes across as a phony baloney political maneuver. I'm glad we have you, B!x, as our baloney filter.
This site is a terrific service to the community. I'm too busy to really keep up on things, but I feel like I can find out more of the real story here.
The One True b!X on 26 Jul 2004
Since we have Commissioner Leonard's comments on conversations with Mayor Katz, here are Mayor Katz's:
Inevitably, having the comments from both parties doesn't give any of us much more than a he said/she said dynamic, but it seemed relevant to have both of them included here.
Sam on 26 Jul 2004
Well, you've left me hanging with the angry response from Katz.
If Katz at least admits to discussing lbr/mgt with Leonard, did she cause it to happen?
If she did, then, Leonard is Guilty as charged.
If she didn't maybe there is something to what Leonard is saying.
Excellent work so far. Now just a little more follow up for those of us who are following these exchanges.
Thanks!
Andy Hundt on 27 Jul 2004
If it doesn't concern you that their instincts are to argue whatever position satisfies their political self-interest, that's not my problem.
That's not what I meant. I don't think your point was ill-taken. I saw what you wrote as being rambling and hyperbolic, which I believe hurts your writing, rather than your position.
These snippets: For some reason, the word "mindboggling" seems at least a little bit relevant here....What the bloody Hell is going on here? are so uncharacteristic of Communique style, which draws power from is thoughtfulness rather than its bluster.
Re-read Randy's first post and Kona's post and you will see that I can agree with the first and disagree with the second without disagreeing with anything you said.
Perhaps you ought to differentiate more between your reports and your editorials somehow, I really don't know. It strikes me that the level of this debate has been dragged down a bit because you have had to spend so much of it explaining what you meant in the first place. Could this be a sign that the original piece is unclear? I put it to you.
Now, since you are competing for writing awards these days, I wonder if you would be willing to take up the excercise of re-writing this piece so that it communiqates your ideas better?
-the [helpful, friendly, not sarcastic] Editor
doretta on 27 Jul 2004
The "end-run around the voters" stuff is absurd. It is a public plan, as b!X points out. It's also temporary.
What's more, it allows the other four commissioners to spend the early months of this term focusing on policy for the entire city, including all the bureaus, instead of administration. Something they seem very eager to do in other contexts.