October 13, 2004
Endorsement: Yes On Six County Measures, No On Two
Local Ballot Measure Quick Picks
We're sure few people forgot about Measure No. 26-64, the petition-driven effort to repeal the temporary Multnomah County income tax. But so focused have we been on the City of Portland, it wasn't until today's Willamette Week that we even realized there were seven other County measures on the ballot as well.
Fortunately, none of them are particularly convoluted, and in fact they all are fairly straightforward. With the exception of the question of term limits, we don't even expect them to present any real controversy. Nonetheless, for the sake of trying to be as comprehensive as possible, here are our endorsements for the eight Multnomah County ballot measures.
Measure No. 26-57 - Majority Vote Required To Elect Multnomah County Officers
Fixes a Charter inconsistency, and requires a general election runoff if no candidate in a primary receives a majority of the votes. Currently, the Charter presents different rules depending upon the office in question. This measure ensures the same rules are used for all elected offices.
Endorsement: Vote yes on Measure No. 26-57.
Measure No. 26-58 - Salary Commission
Currently the County Commission sets its own salaries, as long as they don't exceed the recommendations of the auditor-appointed salary commission. While we understand the sentiment here -- that elected officials perhaps should not be setting their own salaries -- the current system at least offers the possibility that the County Commission could decide upon a salary lower than the recommendation of the salary commission. We suspect that this has never actually happened, we'd rather the possibility exist. Remember: Under the current system, the County Commission cannot set their salaries higher than whatever the salary commission recommends, but could at least in theory set them lower. Under the new system proposed by this measure, the County Commission would be barred from even considering the possibility of setting their salaries lower than that recommendation. It's a small point perhaps, given that we're as cynical as anyone else as to the prospect of elected official deciding to set their salaries at a level lower than necessary. But we'd rather have that option exist under the law than not.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure No. 26-58.
Measure No. 26-59 - Multnomah County Lobbyist
This is a common sense measure. Currently, seemingly the only entity barred from having a lobbyist to represent its interests in Salem and Washington, DC, is Multnomah County. Passing this measure would remove that barrier and allow the County to fight on the same playing field as everyone else.
Endorsement: Vote yes on Measure No. 26-59.
Measure No. 26-60 - County Term Limits
Here we're faced with the matter of term limits -- always a good topic for a heated political debate. Currently, term limits are in place for County elected offices, and this measure would remove those limits. Outside of an office of such extensive power as the presidency, we have never been in favor of term limits for elected officials. The answer to the problem is voter engagement and campaign finance reform, not term limits.
Endorsement: Vote yes on Measure No. 26-60.
Measure No. 26-61 - Multnomah County Official Running For Office Midterm
We imagine there might be some at least small controversy over this one, but we don't see it. Basically, this measure allows a County official to run for another office without first resigning from their current office. While that of course opens the door to charges of spending more time on the campaign trail than in their elected office, requiring resignations causes its own very real headaches in terms of having to fill the office that's been resigned.
Endorsement: Vote yes on Measure No. 26-61.
Measure No. 26-62 - Civil Service Commission Terms
To be honest, we could go either way on this one. Six-year terms or three-year terms? Is there some critical issue either way? So take this endorsement with a grain of salt.
Endorsement: Vote yes on Measure No. 26-62.
Measure No. 26-63 - Nomination of Replacement Candidates After Primary
Apparently, this measure simply puts into place a policy that says the County will follow whatever state law says about replacement candidates should a candidate die, withdraw, or become otherwise ineligible on or after the primary election date. What that state process will be depends upon whether or not one of the statewide ballot measures on this very subject passes.
Endorsement: Vote yes on Measure No. 26-63.
Measure No. 26-64 - Repeals 2004, 2005 County Income Tax For Schools, Other Services
Our view on this is rather straightforward: Frustrated that voters actually approved this emergency and necessary temporary County income tax, forces long-inclined to undercut the social contract in Oregon are trying to capitalize on a more general frustration about economic matters and turn it into support for going back on a promise. Tell them to back off.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure No. 26-64.