August 10, 2005
On Legislation, Administration, And Erik Sten
Because He's The Big Blog Story This Week
In the wake of political stories in the Portland Tribune and The Oregonian this week, various centers and edges of the local blogosphere have been circling Commissioner Erik Sten -- including Jack Bog's Blog, BlueOregon, and My Very Brain (twice).
That leaves plenty of reading and commenting opportunities alike, but it'd be stupid if we did at least make mention of it, so here's what we can communicate about our own views on Sten, more or less.
Obviously, it will come as no surprise that we supported the proposal to turn Portland General Electric into a regional entity, brokered through a City purchase of the utility, or that we supported the Clean Money/Voter-Owned Elections plan, although we sided with those who said it should have gone directly to voters via ballot measure.
Most often, those are the biggest hammers used against Sten by certain segments of our local political culture. So it's clear that we differ with the critics on these counts.
But there's a certain other aspect that's been on our minds lately, mainly as a result of what Commissioner Randy Leonard discovered about problems with a Water Bureau facility very shortly after having that bureau assigned to him. While we have some quibbles with the approach of yesterday's Tribune article, there is one thing we think is important to examine.
"Bogdanski said that’s the problem with Sten," the article says near the end. "[H]e’s more interested in complicated issues than basic management."
That's precisely what we've begun to wonder about. Fundamentally, the Water Bureau billing software issue was an administrative/management issue. So is the problem with the problematic Water Bureau facility which Leonard just stumbled upon.
Under our commission form of government, members of City Council are both general legislators and administrators of their portfolio of specific bureaus.
Looking over much of what gets discussed when people take a look at Sten's tenure in office -- and that includes both the things we think have been worthy of support as well as those things worthy of criticism -- it would seem that perhaps he is far more comfortable and adept at navigating a legislative role than he is at navigating an administrative one.
(It's ironic, we should say tangentially, that Commissioner Leonard seems entirely willing to navigate the administrative functions his job requires, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the administrative decisions he makes. We say this is ironic because Leonard has been critical of the commission form, but that doesn't seem to prevent him from tackling the functions that form assigns to him.)
In some sense, Sten is a tough one to pin down in general, even outside the legislative/administrative split, because in some cases he seems to be thinking in terms of what he thinks is right rather than in terms of what's political (PGE, publicly-financed campaigns), and in other cases his thinking seems to be the opposite.
As examples of the latter, we would offer up the examples of the civil liberties resolution adopted by Council in 2003, and the annual debate over participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
On the former (the campaign for which we were responsible for co-organizing), for the longest time Sten's office was the most receptive to discussion but in the end Sten wouldn't exert any leadership on it -- a mantle that ended up being taken by Commissioner Dan Saltzman instead.
On the latter, we don't think it's unfair to say that most people who watched that debate every year were rather dizzy by the time Sten finished his yearly acrobatics of explaining his vote (always, until this year, to continue participation with no oversight conditions).
That issue of politics sort of brings us around to today's Oregonian story on Sten's proposals for the police and firefighter disability program, and how it's in essence being scuttled by conflicting opinions on Council as to what directions to take and when to act.
While we understand that the political iron may have been hot, what with recent newspaper coverage of concerns about the program as it exists currently, Sten's move to pitch changes to go onto the November ballot struck us as remarkably odd, given that the Council itself instituted a committee process to study the program, and the issue is one of the twenty issues being examined by the Bureau Innovation Project.
What's more, when Mayor Tom Potter came into office, he got all members of Council to sign onto a protocol (scroll down) under which Council members in essence agreed to work collaboratively, rather than jockeying for position or surprising (let alone undercutting) each other with things.
It's a little iffy, to us, whether or not Sten suddenly pushing his own plan for the police and fire disability program, given the pre-existing, ongoing, and Council-approved examinations of that program, fits within the spirit of that protocol.
Which brings us to the bit that always gets us into trouble with people: Reminding our readers (or, those that didn't read the Tribune piece, anyway) that there's an election coming up next year which includes Sten's seat. Pitching reforms for the police and fire disability program right after it gets massive public attention in the press surely must be good for looking good.
By that we don't mean that Sten supports reform in and of itself because he's got an election coming up. But we think the timing question (given, as we said, already-existing Council-adopted processes to look into it) is a valid one.
We know that local elected officials hate it when people intimate political motives for either stances or their timing. We know this because at various times we've heard that dislike directly from at least former Commissioner Jim Francesconi, Saltzman, and Leonard. But we also believe it's civic-ly naive for anyone to fall for the idea that nothing in politics ever is political or cynical.
Again, as we stated way at the beginning here, we're not a Sten opponent. But neither are we a Sten apologist.
In all of the swarm over particular issues, ultimately (and as a way of clumsily ending this somewhat rambling item) what we find the most intriguing issue is the one we spent a little bit of time on up above -- the question of whether Sten is more comfortable being a legislator or an administrator.
It will be interesting to see, when the time comes for the Charter Review discussions, whether or not Sten backs a "strong mayor" system in which the Council is strictly legislative in nature, while the Mayor in essence if the City's actual administrator.
Why?
Because if such a time comes when Portland's form of government is changed to such a system, and Sten still wants to be Mayor, that question of his administrative interest and ability will need to be answered.
Comments (11)
allehseya on 10 Aug 2005
I find it unfortunate that you are lending credibility Jack’s comment. While Jack goes on a mini tour in the media – he is featured in the paper as quipping:
”He doesn’t want to run the city. He wants to run the world. He needs bigger toys to play with,”
You appear to be picking up where Jack leaves off -- as if to explain “why”.
It’s not just the “dump on Commissioner of the week” game here in Portland that I find distasteful. It’s the convenience with which people find it justified to do so.
In your case, b!X I’d like to point out that within the bureaus that each Commissioner has in their portfolio, there is an Administrator within the Bureau itself that is, and should be held to the accountability that you are appear to be applying solely to the Commissioners in question.
That’s just a little too cut and dry, black and white, or rather – simply unfair. While the basis of your concern or pontification is compelling – and certainly more thorough that Jack’s notorious one liner sound-bites – I daresay that I think you may just be jumping on the bandwagon that rolls around come press time around here.
The One True b!X on 10 Aug 2005
You'll note that I don't use Jack's quote. I use what comes before it, because it's the bit that comes before that I think is an easily-legitimate point to raise.
Are there bureau directors? Of course there are. But commissioners are in charge of their bureaus -- "the buck stops here" applies to their administrative responsibilities in this regard.
It's precisely why the fact is relevant that Leonard, barely into his responsibility for the Water Bureau, up and discovers that a facility that's supposed to be in use in fact isn't. Where was Sten's administrative oversight of that bureau? Where was Saltzman's? It couldn't have been a deep dark hidden secret if Leonard found out about almost immediately.
I don't find that an illegitimate observation in the least.
Also, in case you forgot along the way of the rambling post, I -- unlike other critics of Sten such as, for example, Jack -- actually have supported initiatives out of Sten such as pursuing PGE, and publicly-financed campaigns. That inherently demosntrates that this post isn't just some sort of piling on. In fact, the point was to indicate that there may be two issues at play here: The notion of differing opinions on specific legislative proposals Sten has made (on the one hand) and the question of his approach to administrative versus legislative responsibilities (on the other).
Politically, it's surely no stretch to suggest that Sten and I are similar. That doesn't mean I can't find him frustrating or confusing, and it doesn't mean he can't be called into question.
allehseya on 11 Aug 2005
“It's precisely why the fact is relevant that Leonard, barely into his responsibility for the Water Bureau, up and discovers that a facility that's supposed to be in use in fact isn't. … I don't find that an illegitimate observation in the least.”
Nor do I find Leonard’s observation of the Bureau to be illegitimate – or yours, for recognizing that he observed it. Nor have I forgotten that you have supported many of Sten’s reforms.
And while I understand that Sten’s stance may have been confusing on the issue of the JTTF, he did clarify the reasons why he initially supported it and why he was choosing to postpone his vote. It coincided along the line of Potter’s final call that there was still room for negotiation left.
But that’s not the point I was making before in my post. My point – is that the “directors” are in charge of the day-to-day activities and in maintaining the direction of the bureau -- while the Commissioners provide what I understood to be “oversight”.
While the “buck stops here” may be applied to Commissioners, the Directors of each Bureau should be held to accountability as equally as the Commissioners -- as they are entrusted with the responsibility of management in alignment with City policies. This includes reporting to the designated Commissioner of that Bureau any reports that City Council direction is not being met.
My point is that it is too convenient to apply some Ayn Randian logic to make one person accountable in a system that holds multiple people accountable. The real world with its many flaws is simply not that black and white.
This is, of course, not to discredit the competency of oversight of, for instance, Commissioner Leonard; -- it is merely to state that if we call into question the Bureau that is failing to meet City standards, (responsibilities, commitments, etc.) – that the first person we should look to in accountability is the Director of that Bureau or at least – look to that person alongside the Commissioner that the Bureau is to report to.
allehseya on 11 Aug 2005
[disclaimer: before I get called on it -- Sten did not 'postpone' his vote, rather, that is how I read his vote being referred to -- in light of Tom Potter's stance for further negotiation]
Jack Peek on 11 Aug 2005
WOW...When did Erik say it, and when did B!X support it?
This is so funny!
The One True b!X on 11 Aug 2005
WOW...When did Erik say it, and when did B!X support it?
Huh?
Erik Sten on 11 Aug 2005
I just had a chance to read this post, and I think it raises the right questions, both in terms of my work and the system in general. I think it's fair to say that I took the responsibility for the computer system publicly and personally and worked hard to fix it. It may not surprise you that I don't find the Tribune's description of how that all came about as particularly accurate. I did a lot of things as Water Commissioner that are long lost in this discussion. I wouldn't expect it to be any other way, but it's not fair to say that I didn't do a lot of adminstrative and policy work along the way. I am, of course, very familiar with how image and perception come from key events, and I have no problem with that either.
I don't have the time now to share a thoughtful response to a lot of the broader questions that b!x! has raised, but it would be interesting to set up some sort of forum at some point to discuss them. I would welcome a dialogue on all of those thoughts. I think they are very important as we enter the debate of what system people want. I think it's terrific if my record can be used as a way to have a debate that's grounded in real experience and possibility. Particularly if you wrap in the question, that b!x raises, about how Mayor Potter's protocol is working and not working, and what is a violation of it. As you might imagine, that is exactly what he and I discussed in some detail yesterday in what I viewed as difficult, but very productive exchange.
Ultimately, any system will depend upon the elected officials and the citizens attempting to work together. As usual, b!x's approach reaches that standard. I appreciate it.
Maybe this could spark a way to do to more of it.
Erik
allehseya on 11 Aug 2005
A forum? Why -- I know just the place!
Oh, and there just so happens to be PCM video, recording, and editing facilitieis on site as well! ; ]
allehseya on 11 Aug 2005
[disclaimer: the above assumes that by 'forum' one means in addition to the virtual arena. Where citizens may physically go - in person - and interact in the real world with the people / issues at hand. ]
Jay on 11 Aug 2005
Interesting points, Erik. But I have to say that while I've voted in the past for you, I'm really unimpressed by your administrative record to date.
Frankly, I'm unlikely to vote for you again.
I was willing to cut you some slack on the water bureau fiasco, but when you went hunting for PGE, you absolutely threw this vote into the toilet.
All I see from you is political maneuvering.
To me, it looks like "how do I make a name for myself" rather than "how do I best serve the people".
So far, all I'm seeing is self-service.
William on 12 Aug 2005
Well, Erik, I support that you went looking to buy PGE.
I think a vote on the subject would have been a good thing. On the other hand, we've already experienced first-hand how PGE and their well-funded buddies will get away with widely and repeatedly-distributed lies. Can any vote be fair when one viewpoint (especially one supported by lies) gets thrown at the public far more than the other?
I think that criticism is valid, BUT... before spending all that money on the (inevitably unfair) vote, critics might also consider that there's a lot of time-pressure as far as a PGE acquisition goes. A critic might consider that it is appropriate to spend money to feel out the feasibility of such a maneuver BEFORE taking things to a vote (IE significant taxpayer money must be spent whether there's a vote or not so don't harp quite so much about the money City Hall spent on this venture). A critic might consider that PGE has been stealing from us for many years now and that it's unacceptable to allow that to continue.
Of course that's a digression from Bix's article. Regarding this article, I think that, by nature, administration is an invisible job. When things are running as normal, people just don't hear about it. When things go unexpectedly well or poorly, that's when administrators get coverage (see water bureau--and note that I am not being critical of just Sten since, as b!X correctly pointed out, Saltzman also "failed" but his face wasn't on the cover of the Trib).
Legislation, on the other hand, is quite often about change and inherently ruffles a few feathers, and so of course it gets more coverage. b!X may be right, but I am not ready to assume that Sten is more about legislation than administration even though it would seem that way if I just considered what I've seen in the papers.