January 04, 2005
(Updated) 'Strong Mayor' Experiment Hits Speedbump
Potter Delays Bureau Takeover
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Of course the big initial story is that Mayor Tom Potter pledged during his campaign to take control over all City bureaus for six months. Viewed through the lens of Potter's support for conducting a review of the City Charter, which may spell trouble for Portland's commission form of government, and his half-year control of all bureaus looks at least a bit like experimenting with a "strong Mayor" alternative.
There seems to be a bit of confusion about how the experiment is going so far, however. On the one hand, we have today's Portland Tribune reporting one version of the story.
Days into his post, Mayor Tom Potter is fulfilling one of his campaign projects: He has assumed control of all city agencies.
Potter will oversee the bureaus during the next three to six months while sharing his expectations with top managers.
This process, dubbed the Bureau Innovation Partnership, will involve the four other City Council members and numerous community leaders and organizations.
But not so fast, because on the other hand we have today's Oregonian reporting something entirely different.
Exactly who will be doing the work remains to be seen. Awash in first-day rituals on Monday, Potter postponed his planned bureau takeover until next week. The mayor's staff members haven't quite figured out how they'll handle day-to-day city operations and the stacks of paperwork each bureau generates.
Austin Raglione, who previously conducted Commissioner Sam Adams' primary campaign, has been brought in by Potter to oversee this project, and The Oregonian says she will be meeting with bureau heads later this week. According to the Tribune: "Goals include improving diversity in the workplace, bringing a citywide strategic vision to the bureaus, fostering cooperation and collaboration throughout all departments and improving customer service."
We suppose the early question might be: Who in the Mayor's office gave one newspaper the impression that this initiative was launching right away, when in fact that office had not actually devised the ways in which it would successfully run every City bureau? All that accomplishes is creating a first impression that the office isn't exactly hitting the ground running.
Point being: In and of itself delaying the takeover until they were ready would make perfect sense. But delaying the takeover after some people clearly had been given the impression that the takeover was immediate does at least a little early credibility damage.
To start getting a sense of just how daunting a task this is, see this guide to City bureaus, or this list of bureau assignments broken down by Commissioner (the Potter and Adams assignments, of course, being holdovers from Katz and Francesconi).
We're awaiting word on something that has not occured to us previously, which is whether or not Potter's takeover of all bureaus includes the commissioners' liason responsibilities as well, which would certainly make the experiment all the more difficult. In theory, we suppose if the takeover does not include those responsibilities, that would give the other commissioners something to do while awaiting bureau assignments.
Update
An interesting point of historical synchronicity we uncovered while reading a City Club of Portland report on 2002's attempt to alter the City's form of government. It seems that under the "good government" proposal brought forward by Robert Ball, if it had been adopted by voters, the first "strong Mayor" to take office in Portland would have done so on January 1, 2005.
Update
This from Nancy Hamilton, Potter's chief of staff: "I am reviewing all the guidelines with bureau managers and commissioners over the next two days. They will have an opportunity to chime in on our proposed protocols during the time Tom has the bureaus before we release our plans to the press."
Update
One other thing to keep in mind. Earlier this year, in the wake of Commissioner Francesconi trying to introduce legislation regarding the Portland Police Bureau despite it being part of Mayor Katz's portfolio, City Council adopted an ordinance permitting commissioners to introduce legislation regarding each other's bureaus.
Not that we have any indication that any Council members will use this new authority while Potter has all City bureaus, but the authority to do so exists.
Update
Please see this new item which corrects something we said in the comments to this item.
Comments (7)
Randy Leonard on 04 Jan 2005
B!X-
Mayor Potter has asked us to keep up our liaison responsibilities with our current bureau assignments.
As I understand his direction, the process will be much like when former Mayor Katz took the bureau's during the budget season but had us maintain the day to day correspondence and liaison works within our respective assignments.
Jeff on 04 Jan 2005
I have to say, I haven't really understood his motivation on this score in the first place. I admire a politician who doesn't hold slavishly to the word of his promises, but tries to use his brain to keep the spirit. He's been on the job a coupla days, so I'll wait and see...
The One True b!X on 04 Jan 2005
I have to say, I haven't really understood his motivation on this score in the first place.
Well, to be able to set out citywide strategies and priorities consistently across all bureaus. During the campaign, Potter often talked of the "silo effort" as applied to City bureaus -- this is his effort at creating some commonalities across the bureaus, which is meant to help coutner that effect.
Whether or not it works, we will see. How well it works -- and how well the public perceives it to work -- will inevitably play into the eventual Charter Review Committee, which will bring the form-of-government people out of the woodwork.
For what it's worth, we're in essence discussing Chapter 2, Section 2-302 of the City Charter, which reads, in part, thusly:
Odd thing is, delay or no delay on Potter's plan to assume control over all bureaus, there's no such "order which shall be filed and preserved as an ordinance" on tomorrow's Council agenda.
Off the subject, I do notice that there's been an addition to that agenda, placed in the four-fifths section (the only way an addition can be made at this late a date). It's a resolution introduced by Potter to "[e]xpress sympathy and support to the victims of the Southeast Asia earthquake and tsunami disaster".
Amanda on 05 Jan 2005
On the issue of Commissioners "having something to do" while awaiting bureau assignments:
City Commissioners serve three roles, similar to the executive, judiciary, and legislative divisions of state and federal governments. Their duties in overseeing particular bureaus can be considered the executive function. They also act as final decision-makers on land use proposals and other specific legal matters such as zoning, financial, and tort issues, i.e., as the judiciary. And, they make choices in a legislative capacity, debating and adopting broad general policies not specific to a particular bureau.
Even with Mayor Potter assuming the top-administrator role for all bureaus, there are plenty of judicial and policy issues for Commissioners to be considering. Taking away the bureau assignments not only attempts to combat the silo/turf mentality, it also frees the Council with more time and perspective to look at legal and long-range legislative directions in a broad, citywide manner.
And still leaves a huge scope of work for the other four to do, instead of playing golf. The budget, Measure 37 response, and the potential action or inaction of the State Legislature on funding schools and services, are but three issues that spring to mind immediately.
Randy Leonard on 05 Jan 2005
In the past, I had jokingly said I would learn to play golf while Mayor Potter took over all of the bureaus.
But Amanda is right, for there appears to be no time for that with what we are dealing with here at city hall.
I like what Mayor Potter is doing and the message he is delivering. I will devote myself to making sure his various initiatives do not fail...which means, again, no time for golf.
Amanda on 05 Jan 2005
And another thing:
Each bureau has a Director, who is paid around $100k a year to provide management, leadership, and supervision. Some of them could actually be more effective and efficient without continual "advice" from a Commissioner-in-charge. At the very least, we should expect that as these people have been selected by elected officials, they are competent to do their jobs and run the bureaus well without daily micromanagement by a Commissioner.
Certainly, we want careful bureau oversight by elected officials. But a short break with the bureau Directors having a common boss (the Mayor) could set system-wide expectations that might carry over when the bureau assignments are given out later.
Randy Leonard on 05 Jan 2005
"Some of them could actually be more effective and efficient without continual "advice" from a Commissioner-in-charge."
That may be true in some cases, but not others.
It is important for all Bureaus to be accountable to an independently elected civilian.
For and example, police departments must have the check and balance that civilian control brings. Otherwise, the cultural inertia that focuses on what the police may perceive as "bad people" could overwhelm the public's right to protest, speak out on whatever issue they choose and generally just be different.
Similarly, each bureau has it's own culture that begins to morph into what its goals and desires are that can, at times, be at odds with what the publics goals and desires are.
Elected, civilian control of bureaucracies may not always be perfect (or pretty), but, in my opinion, it is much better than not having it.