Candace Avalos: "We need to make the separation of powers super clear."
Charter Commissioner Candace Avalos on why a hybrid form of government is not the best of both worlds.
Portland’s Charter Commission wants to change Portland’s current form of government. But will they replace it with a mayor-council form or a council-manager system?
A majority of the commissioners don’t want to choose one over the other. They instead want to draft a compromise that blends elements of both systems together.
That could be a dealbreaker, says Charter Commissioner Candace Avalos.
It’s crunch time for Portland’s Charter Commission, the independent body tasked with reviewing the city charter and making recommendations. On March 31 the commission will vote on what recommendations to send to city staff for amendment drafting and fiscal impact review. The deadline is driven by the commission’s desire to place the charter reform package on the November 2022 ballot.
Commission wants a mayor-council form, but some are wary of committing fully
On March 15th, a polling session among charter commissioners revealed that commissioners had lost their initial interest in a council-manager government, a widely used system that gives the city council both executive and legislative powers but delegates executive function to a professional manager. The commission instead agreed to move forward with a mayor-council form of government.
Despite unanimity around choosing the mayor-council form, many commissioners were reluctant to commit fully to the distinguishing characteristic of the mayor-council form of government – a clear separation of executive and legislative powers similar to that of the federal government.
The majority instead opted for a hybrid form that would give the mayor independent executive authority while still holding a seat on the council and voting with the other council members. In this scenario, the mayor would not have a veto since the mayor would themselves be part of the legislative branch.
A hybrid will lead to confusion, says Commissioner Avalos
Charter Commissioner Candace Avalos, who has served as co-chair of the Charter Commission’s Form of Government Subcommittee, thinks a hybrid form is a mistake. When the commission took a straw poll on the entire draft package on March 15, she voted no.
“I debated heavily whether I should say no […] because I don’t want to signal that I’m against these things in general, but I did want to signal my strong feelings around wanting to keep the legislative and executive branches separate. I think that’s what we’re trying to create, that’s what Portlanders are asking for, and blending it too much makes it confusing,” she said.
Commissioner Avalos - who ran for city council in 2020 - has been one of the most outspoken voices for a mayor-council form on the commission and has likely won over many of her colleagues who started out in favor of a council-manager system. Follow her on Twitter here.
Since the commission began its work in 2020, she has advocated repeatedly for the separation of powers as a way to achieve more transparency and accountability in government.
“I think people are understandably concerned about accountability and checks and balances. If we’re going to give the mayor the powers that we say we are, we need to commit to that and give the mayor powers to make decisions that the council doesn’t have and vice versa. I think that’s going to result in a more clear balance of powers. There are some dealbreakers for me on that front,” she said.
Council’s influence over staff is a sticking point
The biggest dealbreaker for Commissioner Avalos would be if the city council gets influence over the city’s chief administrative officer (CAO) and also gets to weigh in on the hiring and firing of city department heads.
“I think city council approval of the hiring of the CAO makes complete sense and is a valid way to share that power. But having the city council be involved in firing them or having the city council be involved with bureau heads feels too much like the legislative trying to be the executive,” Ms. Avalos continued.
“There are many ways to interpret a mayor-council form and we can tweak it in little ways here and there, but a true hybrid is messy. I use this example: If my board gets to tell me if I can fire an employee that they don’t have to work with and they just oversee, then that puts me in a really hard spot. It diminishes my authority to address the situation that I have the most unique perspective to understand. I don’t think that’s a successful place for anyone, not the mayor, not the employee, and not the council.”
Instead, Commissioner Avalos advocates for an independent council without the mayor, which she says could choose to elect its own city council president to be the liaison to the executive branch. According to Ms. Avalos, having the council president and the mayor serve on an executive committee together would be a better bridge between the executive and legislative branches than having the mayor serve on the city council.
“I want us to take a step back and talk about what people are seeking. If people want accountability and transparency, then we need to talk about how those things can be achieved without blending the powers too much and making it too complicated,” Ms. Avalos concluded.
Form of government: the academic perspective
Rose City Reform reached out to Kimberly Nelson, professor of public administration and government at UNC School of Government to ask about research related to hybrid forms of government.
“There aren’t that many true hybrids in the United States,” Professor Nelson said.
“Cincinnati and Kansas City are the two biggest. When you start empowering a mayor in the council-manager form to the point where the mayor has independent executive authority, or you weaken the council, or both, then it becomes less clear whether there is unified power or a separation of powers. That’s when you get a hybrid,” Professor Nelson said.
“There is no evidence to support the idea that a hybrid form is in some way the best of both worlds. I would argue that it muddies the water so much that roles and responsibilities are unclear, and it makes it harder for staff to understand who they are taking direction from,” she continued.
Council-manager governments fight less, are less corrupt and innovate more, Nelson’s research says
According to Professor Nelson, a recent meta-analysis of all academic research that has been done to date comparing mayor-council and council-manager governments found some evidence that the council-manager form has benefits versus the mayor-council form while other studies showed no difference between the two forms of government.
Professor Nelson’s own research has established higher rates of innovation and cooperation in manager-council governments, along with lower rates of conflict and corruption.
“The way I think of it is: You can have success or failure with any form of government, but council-manager has the structural features that line up the roles and responsibilities so that you have a greater predisposition for success than in the mayor-council form. In neither do you have a guarantee of success, and neither gives you a guarantee of no corruption, but the possibility of success is heightened when you use the council-manager form, in my opinion,” she concluded.
What form of government will commissioners choose in the end?
We’ll find out on March 31.
Rose City Reform will keep you updated all the way.
Watch the Charter Commission’s next work session.
Attend the Charter Commission’s next public hearing.
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.