Vadim Mozyrsky: "The status quo is better than the reform proposal".
The Charter Commissioner on why he voted no on the reform proposal.
On June 14, Portland’s Charter Commission voted to refer a comprehensive charter reform package to the November ballot.
Only three out of twenty charter commissioners voted no. Vadim Mozyrsky was one of them. Here is his perspective.
For most Portlanders, Charter Commissioner Vadim Mozyrsky is best known for trying to unseat City Commissioner Joann Hardesty earlier this year. Despite being favored by Portland’s business community and many center progressives, he finished third in the May primary.
Mr. Mozyrsky hails from Kiev, Ukraine and is a practicing disability attorney. An avid community volunteer, his resume includes service on multiple boards and advisory bodies.
Rose City Reform caught up with Commissioner Mozyrsky to learn why he opposes the reform proposal.
Charter Reform package headed for ballot.
What were your goals going into the charter review process?
My number one priority was modernizing Portland’s form of government. I also wanted increased accountability on City Council and more opportunity for Portlanders to be involved in the democratic process.
In your opinion, does the reform proposal not accomplish those things?
I see a strong possibility that we’re exchanging one flawed government for another deeply flawed way of governing.
I’m very concerned about the election form that’s been chosen because multi-member districts coupled with ranked choice voting is an untested system in the United States.
There are variations of what we’re proposing in other countries but we’re not copying a proven system. We can’t say to Portlanders: “Look, here’s an example of better governance that we will pattern. Our city will work just like that.”
Introducing an untested system in a city as large as Portland has the very strong possibility of creating new problems.
What kinds of problems?
The four proposed districts will be very large, but different neighborhoods have different needs. Alberta doesn’t have the same needs as Irvington, yet under this system they could be in the same district.
Electing three individuals from each district exacerbates the problem with accountability. If you need something done in your district, who do you call? If your needs aren’t being met, who do you hold responsible next time you vote?
Another concern I have is that we have several crises facing our city, and in two years, we will elect twelve new city council members plus one mayor. We’ll have a long lag of people's ability to come together to form the coalitions that we need to govern and pass legislation to help people out.
You have said you could support ranked choice voting, but not combined with multi-member districts. Why?
When you have multi-member districts mixed with ranked choice voting, the person with the most first-place votes will get elected to City Council, but so will two other people. I hope people realize that everyone they've ever voted against would still be on City Council under this system.
Currently, we have ten to twenty people running for each city council seat. Now multiply that by three in each district. Without a primary, we could easily have thirty people running for three district seats all the way to November.
With thirty people running, incumbents with name recognition will have a huge advantage. If all you need is 25% of first place votes to be elected, incumbents are almost assured to be reelected. My concern is that an incumbent on City Council will basically have lifetime tenure because of ranked choice voting coupled with multi-member districts.
What did you want to send to the ballot instead?
A council-manager form of government and nine single-member districts as a stepping-stone. I’d even be supportive of ranked choice voting. There's nothing terribly wrong with twelve or thirteen city councilors. But let's try out an incremental system, see how it works, and then improve upon it.
You suggested separating the reforms into two or three independent ballot questions. Why?
If the reforms had been referred as separate measures, at least people would have a choice between the different proposals. When I saw that people wouldn't have a choice I had to vote no.
A lot of people wanted to change the form of government but disagreed with the proposed elections system. That feedback didn’t get the discussion it merited. If a majority of voters want multi-member districts with ranked choice voting, then the voters will have spoken. Let people vote on what they like and don’t like.
Do you think the status quo is better than the reform proposal?
I honestly think the status quo is better than the current proposal. The status quo very much depends on the people we elect. That’s true for any government system, but more so for a commission form government because commissioners oversee bureaus.
There have been times in Portland when things worked and that’s because we elected individuals that either through their own abilities, or the people they put around them, were able to get things done.
I have grave concerns that in two years, Portland could be experimenting with an untested system, and the negative externalities could really wreak havoc. I'd much rather believe in the ability of good leaders to improve on what we have.
You came a close third in your city council race. Under the reform proposal, each district would elect three seats, and the third top vote-getter would be elected. Did you reflect on that at all?
Oh, definitely. If I were to run again, it'd be a lot easier for me to be elected under the proposed new system than under the current system. I received a lot of votes in what would be my district.
But I don't want a system that installs new problems just because it would make running for office easier. That’s not how I want to play this game. I want the City of Portland to work.
Would you consider running again in two years?
Right now it’s not my intent to run again in two years, but nothing’s off the table.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.