Ulysses PAC: "Charter Commission's proposal will make it harder to get Portland back on track."

Ulysses co-director Jessica Elkan on why she thinks Portlanders should hurry up and wait for the PAC's alternative reform proposal.

Do you think Portland government needs an overhaul?

Then you should vote no on the Charter Commission’s ballot measure in November. 

That’s the message the Ulysses PAC will send to voters next month when it reveals its alternative charter reform proposal.

This fall, Portland voters will have the option to pass charter reform of a magnitude not seen since the current city charter was adopted in 1913.

Eight previous charter reform attempts have failed.

But this time could be different.

Not only is this reform effort more comprehensive than the others. It’s also the first time the ballot question comes from a citizen-led charter commission. The volunteer group spent nearly a year and a half developing the proposal – and passed it with a supermajority of 17-3 votes.

No one, including elected officials, seems to think that Portland’s government is working. Many voters are hopeful about the promise of alternative voting methods, like ranked choice voting.

Conditions seem ripe for reform, right?

Then why does the Ulysses PAC – spearheaded by City Commissioner Mingus Mapps, whose 2020 city council race centered around the need for charter reform – think this is the moment when voters should pump the breaks?

Be careful what you vote for, PAC says.

On October 3, the Ulysses PAC plans to release it’s own charter reform proposal.

The PAC hopes its competing plan, still in draft form, will sway voters to reject the Charter Commission’s ballot measure in November and instead wait for Mapps to introduce the Ulysses-backed plan to City Council early next year. 

“There’s such a strong sense of frustration right now with what's going on in Portland that people are willing to vote yes on something because of that frustration,” says Ulysses co-director Jessica Elkan. 

“The problem is that the commission's proposal will make it harder to get the city back on track. It will create a fractured council in which few, if any members, have the confidence of most voters.”

Ulysses wants more districts and fewer city councilors.

So what’s the Ulysses PAC’s beef with the Charter Commission’s city council structure?

The Charter Commission wants to divide Portland into four large city council districts that would each elect three seats. By using a multi-winner version of ranked choice voting called single transferable vote, the commission wants to lower the threshold for being elected to roughly a quarter of the district vote.

That would give voting groups that can’t win a majority a shot at securing council representation, which the commission thinks would allow more voices to be heard at City Hall.

Read my primer on single transferable vote.

The Ulysses PAC instead wants to create seven to nine smaller districts that would each elect one seat by a majority of the district vote.

This model of district representation is the most popular in the United States. Ulysses thinks it would give individual council members broader support both in their district and citywide – and make elected officials more accountable to the voters who elected them.

Elkan says the PAC is open to ranked choice voting, but only the single-winner kind.

Under the Ulysses plan, voters would also get to see a tentative district map before they vote to adopt district representation. Actual district lines would be drawn by an independent districting body after adoption.

PAC wants mayor to remain on council or have veto power.

Both the Charter Commission and the Ulysses PAC want to remove city commissioners from city bureaus and hire a professional city administrator.

But they have differing views on the mayor’s powers.

The Charter Commission wants to make the council a purely legislative body and vest all executive power with the mayor, who would no longer serve on Council. But charter commissioners stopped short of giving the mayor a veto, saying that would unfairly tip the scale in the mayor’s favor.

The Ulysses PAC thinks that’s a mistake.

The PAC argues that to lead successfully, the mayor either needs to remain on City Council, or have veto power to block unwanted council legislation.

Elkan says that while charter reform is important, solving Portland’s problems will depend largely on the leadership of the future council and mayor.

“But the new council will be beholden to factions and less accountable to the majority of city voters. And the mayor will be kicked off the council and treated like a bureaucrat,” she warns.

“A fractured leadership structure will defeat any attempts to solve the problems that plague the city.“

Wait ten months for better reform, Elkan says.

If Mapps introduces the Ulysses plan to City Council next year, he’ll need two additional votes to refer it as a referendum in the 2023 May primary election.

“I’m committed to working with my colleagues on charter reform in 2023, if that time comes, with the goal of achieving greater consensus and giving voters more choice in how their new government is formed,” Commissioner Mapps told Rose City Reform.

Jessica Elkan says the PAC is confident Mapps can secure enough votes to refer the proposal to voters. The PAC is in favor of breaking the reforms into two or three separate ballot questions to let Portlanders choose which reforms to support.

Charter Commissioner David Knowles, who spoke to Rose City Reform as a private citizen, sees no problem with the Ulysses PAC floating an alternative proposal prior to the November election. 

“Developing a sensible alternative helps communicate to voters that they don’t have to make an all or nothing choice,” said Knowles, who was one of three charter commissioners to vote no on the commission’s ballot measure.

Some believe Ulysses proposal interferes with public process.

But not everyone thinks the timing of the Ulysses PAC’s proposal is appropriate.

City Commissioner JoAnn Hardesty recently criticized Mapps for disrupting the Charter Commission’s citizen-led work, saying his approach undermines trust in government participation.

Charter Commissioner Andrew Speer, expressing his personal views, says Mapps’ plan to introduce an alternate reform proposal stands in conflict with the intent of the charter itself.

“There’s a reason why the charter includes a commission of Portlanders to review the charter. We have done the work, and continue to do the work, of connecting with Portlanders. And Portlanders need to understand that the Ulysses PAC isn’t representing all of Portland,” Speer said.

“I think there's a strategic effort here to confuse voters and create doubt.”

Speer, a Park Rose resident and citizen volunteer, thinks Mapps should let voters have a say on the ballot measure before inserting himself into the process.

Rose City Reform asked Commissioner Mapps to respond.

“Democracy is about engaging in debates about the important issues facing our community, offering our best ideas and fostering dialogue,” Mapps replied.

“Voters want accountability from our elected leaders and that’s a key element of our alternate draft that voters will see on October 3.”

Ulysses plan drafted in-house with input from focus groups.

So who’s crafting the Ulysses plan?

Jessica Elkan says it’s being developed in-house by the Ulysses team with consulting help from subject-matter experts and local polling firm DHM Research.

DHM conducted two focus groups in late summer, which each included ten participants from across the city. According to DHM, the selection process sought diversity in terms of factors like age, gender and race.

Only likely voters who were initially undecided on the Charter Commission’s ballot measure were selected. They were asked to react both to the ballot measure and the Ulysses PAC’s draft plan. 

After learning about the differences between the plans, most participants favored the alternative. Jessica Elkan hopes that will help the PAC convince voters to wait for the Ulysses proposal.

“We need a reform that is designed to promote better leadership and getting things done, not one that will worsen the failures of leadership and inaction that have driven us off course in recent years,” she says.

“We’re not against charter reform. We just want better charter reform.”

---

Portland charter reform in the news.

The Oregonian: How best to distribute political power in Portland? Fault lines erupt over charter ballot proposal.

KGW: Reforming Portland's system of government is top-of-mind for voters, but specific proposals spark debate.

KATU: Portland's government reform measure faces growing opposition on City Council.

Perspectives on national election reform.

DemocracySOS: The Five Harmful Gremlins of Winner-Take-All Elections

Jack Santucci for 3Streams: Alaska’s special election illustrates an unpredictable system.

Divided We Fall: Ranked-Choice Voting: Effective Reform or Wishful Thinking?