May 11, 2005
Making Sausage At City Hall
Council Grapples With Referring Voter-Owned Elections Proposal
There's an old saying about how you're much better off not knowing how either law or sausage is actually made. That cliche managed to explode all over Council Chambers this morning, as once again the Sten/Blackmer proposal for publicly-financed campaigns came under discussion.
Since the proposal was having its second reading, the plan itself was not at issue for Council debate and public testimony. Rather, the matter at hand was precisely how to address ensuring that the system, once adopted by Council, actually is referred to the voters of Portland at a later date.
As readers here know, earlier this week Commissioner Saltzman was pitching an amendment to institute a sunset clause, guaranteeing that the finance system would expire at a given date until and unless further action was taken. As happens, things changed yet again, and what Saltzman brought with him to Council was an amendment to refer the system to the ballot in 2010.
That's when things started to go a little haywire, as members of Council, CIty Auditor Gary Blackmer, citizen testifiers, the City Attorney, and various staff members scrambled around through some very dense and confusing discussion of just what the current Council is and is not permitted to do.
While much of the discussion revolved around how to navigate the inability of any current Council to commit a future Council to any particular action (at its simplest, any future Council could just vote to undo whatever a current Council said), the real sticking point -- which surprisingly to us did not receive nearly as much discussion as we would have thought -- was the premise that under normal circumstances, any law referred to voters automatically gets put on hold until the referral process is completed and the voters make a decision.
In other words, it appeared possibly to be the case that if Council were to include referral language right here and now, the system of publicly-financed campaigns could not actually be implemented for its two-cycle trial period, because it would have to wait until the referral election occurred.
What three of the four Council members eventually agreed to (Mayor Potter is in Washington, DC) was language instructing the City Auditor to prepare a measure for the November 2010 ballot, and return to Council with that material by June, 2010. Commissioners Adams, Saltzman, and Sten supported this approach, while Commissioner Leonard opposed it.
Instead, what Leonard sought was a way to guarantee (at least as much as possible) that the measure would be on a future ballot, for whatever specific election the Council chose (Leonard himself wanted to see a May 2009 date used, so that each position on the Council experienced the new system once and only once before it was considered by voters).
Which is why we're surprised there wasn't a depper discussion of the City Attorney's final suggestion: The idea that it might be legal for the Council immediately to refer to measure to the 2010 (or whenever) election, but include language which stated that the new Code governing the new finance system would be implemented and remain in force in the meantime.
We are entirely uncertain whether or not that actually is something the Council could impose, under State or City laws governing referrals, and we haven't yet had the chance to look into it. But that's the solution, if permissible, which would have given (as near as we can tell) every member of the Council what they wanted to see.
Instead, if the amended version is adopted by Council next week (with the new Saltzman provision directing the Auditor to come back before Council by June 2008 with a referral), there still is no guarantee that the measure truly will be referred to the voters.
The missing piece of information then is something that will confirm or deny the City Attorney's final suggestion. Can the Council refer the system to a future ballot now, but include language which prevents the Code from being put on hold until then?
If so, then we urge Council to entertain yet another amendment (even if it means that they would not be able to vote on the entire proposal next week after all) which does that. If not, then there indeed is no way both to guarantee a future referral and actually implement the new system in the meantime.
Posted at 01:21 PM | PermalinkComments (16) | TrackBacks (2)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (2)
-
Take one tablet before voting for ignorance on 12 May 2005
I've been so busy with exams, grades, and the end of the school year that I haven't gotten into downtown Portland enough. Apparently they are handing out smart pills down there. The Oregonian editorial board took some this week. Not...
-
Take one tablet before voting, for ignorance on 12 May 2005
I've been so busy with exams, grades, and the end of the school year that I haven't gotten into downtown Portland enough. Apparently they are handing out smart pills down there. The Oregonian editorial board took some this week. Not...
Comments (16)
Chris Smith on 11 May 2005
b!X - I think you missed a critical point in the discussion today. Council apparently CAN refer it now, but they need to do so in a resolution including a ballot title. They COULD NOT refer it as part of the ordinance that implements voter owned elections. They need two different legislative vehicles. So they settled on putting direction in the ordinance to have the Auditor prepare the materials for referal.
As to how soon they could do this, I think could probably do the resolution as soon as the appropriate legislation could be drafted, but I think that while Saltzman and Leonard would have supported this, they lacked a third vote. Both Adams and Sten made it pretty clear they wanted the new Citizen Commission to weigh in on the referal.
Sausage indeed, but I'm sure it will be tasty sausage when grilled up in the next two election cycles!
Alan DeWitt on 11 May 2005
Why not pass two things together?
One, an ordinance that implements the voter-owned elections plan from now through the 2010 election cycle (or whenever) and automatically sunsets at that time. Two, a resolution referring an identical plan to the voters in 2010, which if passed takes effect after the 2010 election cycle.
It's complicated, but apparently it's not needlessly complicated.
Jack Bog on 11 May 2005
What hypocrites. If it's worth referring to the voters, it's worth doing so before it's implemented.
This is the same kind of two-faced garbage that got Mr. Francesconi his walking papers. And it's not far removed from the "public process" abominations at the PDC.
I think we can all tell when they're giving us the finger. At least Vera did so openly. Smiling while they do it doesn't make it any less offensive.
The One True b!X on 11 May 2005
I think you missed a critical point in the discussion today. Council apparently CAN refer it now, but they need to do so in a resolution including a ballot title. They COULD NOT refer it as part of the ordinance that implements voter owned elections.
That didn't make into this post, you're right. But I don't think it's a given that they can refer it ahead of time without it meaning the Code can't actually go into effect until the referral election.
That's the bit I think they need much more certainty on from the City Attorney.
Chris B on 11 May 2005
Jack -- They can't refer it to voters now. Why give voters a choice in whether they want to "own" the election? We're too stupid to understand the concept without "seeing" it for two cycles. We must be saved from ourselves.
In looking back at other posts, I have to chuckle at the reasons it's not a clean money provision anymore because of the suggestion that today's money is dirty. Let's face it, if the council feels we need this, each member of coucil has taken dirty money and will continue to take dirty money because they plan to opt out of taking public money for their electoral private gain. Or maybe, by not taking public money for their electoral gain, they'll only be owned by their contributors rather than by voters.
Chris Smith on 11 May 2005
Jack, two of these guys ran on a campaign promise that they were going to vote for it. How is doing so giving anyone the finger?
b!X, you're absolutely right about the City Attorney!
Amanda on 11 May 2005
If the present Councilmen are still in office in 2009, they've all indicated willingness to refer the measure, and can be held accountable if they don't.
If a challenger has used public financing to win a seat on the Council and replaced an incumbent, the clear understanding ("legislative intent") is that the measure will be referred, and the new Council member can be held accountable if they refuse to vote to refer it.
So the only risk of it not being referred, is if a challenger wins by not using the system (by accepting big money from rich stakeholders). But since s/he hadn't used the public financing, wouldn't that new incumbent likely be in favor of referring the system, or getting rid of it outright?
The One True b!X on 11 May 2005
By the way, am I right in my conception that the reason there needs to be two separate items (the new law, and then the referral) is because in order to refer a new law to the voters, the legislative body has to have actually passed it first?
Chris Smith on 11 May 2005
By the way, am I right in my conception that the reason there needs to be two separate items (the new law, and then the referral) is because in order to refer a new law to the voters, the legislative body has to have actually passed it first?
No, I think normally you refer it to allow the voters to pass it. The point the City Attorney made is that you can't do a referal without a ballot title, which had definitely not been drafted yet. Also, I think I heard him say that a referal must be a resolution, not an ordinance.
The One True b!X on 11 May 2005
Yeah that last part is definitely correct, and so far is the only thing I've been able to glean on any of this from either state of city elections law. Heh.
Jack Bog on 11 May 2005
From the City Charter:
I don't think they can refer something onto a ballot five years from now.
Chris Smith on 11 May 2005
Jack, excellent research. The City Attorney didn't quote that one today!
However, what they adopted today is probably OK. They did not do a referal but rather directed the Auditor to prepare referal language for their use in 2010. So under today's decision Council would not actually be doing the referal until 2010, as originally articulated in the Blackmer proposal.
The One True b!X on 11 May 2005
WTF. How did I miss that?
Good call, heh.
The One True b!X on 11 May 2005
Though that's from City Code, not the Charter.
The One True b!X on 11 May 2005
Chris is right that what they did today is going to be legally kosher. It doesn't, however, coincide what Leonard was seeking, but then again I suppose that's why he voted against it.
It would appear, at this point, that there's no way to do what Leonard seemed to be seeking to do.
Jack Bog on 11 May 2005
However, what they adopted today is probably OK. They did not do a referal but rather directed the Auditor to prepare referal language for their use in 2010.
That's rich. Maybe they should have him draft up some language repealing all city taxes, to be enacted in 2015.
Hopefully a few of them will have other jobs by '10.