Does the Charter Commission's vision align with the Model City Charter?
Mostly it does. Here's an analysis of how Portland's potential charter changes stack up to the best practice recommendations in the National Civic League's Model City Charter.
In its most recent progress report, Portland’s Charter Commission – the independent body tasked with reviewing the city charter and recommending changes – lists three consensus agreements for the charter reform package that will land on the ballot in November.
So how do the proposed changes compare with the Model City Charter, the city governance guide published by the National Civic League?
In my interview with National Civic League research director Mike McGrath, he calls the Model City Charter “a model with alternatives, not a blueprint for cities to follow verbatim”. No two cities are alike and the goal is not for all municipalities to have identical charters. Local differences are to be expected, but a certain level of alignment with the Model City Charter is an indication that Portland will stay within the realm of solutions with a proven track record of success.
Agreement #1: To shift the constituency of city council from all at-large seats and to increase the size of city council.
Level of alignment: Mixed bag.
The Model City Charter recommends district representation, or a mix of district and at-large representation. That means that the Charter Commission’s desire to abandon Portland’s all at-large council for some form of district representation is in strong alignment with the Model City Charter.
Conversely, the Charter Commission’s proposal to increase the City Council to between 9 and 15 members – a move that the commission hopes will boost and diversify representation – breaks with the Model City Charter’s recommendation of a leaner council consisting of 5 to 9 representatives.
The Model City Charter argues that large district-based councils have historically struggled to effectively discharge their duties, and more often fall prey to parochialism and quid-pro-quo bargaining.
Agreement #2: To shift from the commission form of government to a form of government in which city councilors do not directly manage bureaus.
Level of alignment: Medium to high.
The Charter Commission’s consensus that city commissioners should be stripped of their bureau management responsibilities is in strong alignment with the Model City Charter. The Model City Charter recommends the separation of legislative and executive functions to codify the city council’s role as a policymaking body.
Ultimately, the level of alignment between the Charter Commission’s proposed form of government and the Model City Charter’s recommendations will depend on whether charter commissioners choose a council-manager form of government to replace Portland’s current commission form, or if they choose to empower the mayor in a mayor-council form of government.
The Model City Charter strongly recommends a council-manager form of government, where the legislative and executive powers are unified under the council, but the council must delegate its executive function to a professional city manager who is overseen by the council. This form of government can be compared to a corporate or nonprofit board, with the city manager acting as the chief executive officer. Academic research suggests that council-manager governments are more resistant to corruption, fight less and innovate more. If the charter commission chooses this option, alignment will be high.
If the Charter Commission instead chooses a mayor-council form of government, a system defined by the separation of executive and legislative powers similar to that of the federal government, the mayor will receive a higher level of independent power. In that scenario, alignment with the Model City Charter could range from medium to medium-high, depending on the exact structure.
The Model City Charter recognizes that the mayor-council form of government is a popular system that many cities prefer. As a result, it has best practice recommendations for this system as well. Most notably, the Model City Charter recommends that mayor-council cities employ a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) who is confirmed by the entire city council, not just the executive mayor.
Agreement #3: To shift to a form of voting that allows a decision in one election, eliminates the primary, and adopts a voting method that captures people's preferences.
Level of alignment: High.
While the Model City Charter doesn’t go as far as to recommend ranked choice voting, it highlights ranked choice voting as a promising practice to improve representation. Both the Model City Charter and the Portland Charter Commission favor November elections.
One difference is that the Model City Charter recommends odd-year November elections, while the Portland Charter Commission seems to favor presidential year elections for their promise of higher voter turnout.
That difference may be relatively minor in the context of Portland elections. The idea of separating national and city elections is primarily a way to protect city elections from partisan bias and divisiveness. Given Portland’s homogenous electorate as far as allegiance to a particular political party is concerned, that could be less of an issue in Portland than in other cities.
Maja Viklands Harris is a Portland resident, a recovering journalist, a policy activist and a serial citizen advisory board member. Her writing focuses on government reform, public process, decision-making psychology and policy best practice.