Aug 16, 2022·edited Aug 16, 2022Liked by Maja Viklands Harris
The Sightline Institute covered the guts of charter reform voting methods in 2021, Kristine Eberhard's articles are still worth reading, they explain the MGGG voting research.
And I wrote an "in the weeds" charter reform article for BikePortland.org on June 27.
I can’t answer your questions about what information was included in the progress report or why. I can just say that the commission’s intent was clearly communicated in a number of public meetings. As an independent writer with a limited reach I have tried to draw attention to the process since February because of how significant this vote is for Portland. I started my newsletter primarily because local reporters weren’t providing running coverage. Perhaps if they had, the public wouldn’t be so surprised by the outcome of the charter review process.
To be fair, although I too was disappointed to see the hands-off approach from the Council and I share your frustration with the belated coverage by the media., the Commission created the conflict we're witnessing now when, late in the process, it decided to combine all of its recommended changes in one take-it-or-leave-it package. Had the Commission not done so, I think we would be seeing a more civil and nuanced debate over the different elements of the reform package. Their recommendations could have been presented in four discrete proposals that would have worked by themselves or in combination with the others: (1) City administrator supervised by mayor; (2) expanded city council, elected by district, with mayor's role clarified; (3) the two versions of ranked choice voting proposed for citywide and district candidates, although this may have warranted separate proposals; and, (4) the policy priorities for the mayor and administrator. My sense is that a super-majority of Portlanders would be on board for (1) from the start, and the debate on the remaining pieces would have been more substantive and less likely to leave them with a failed reform effort. It appears the Commission decided that Portland's crisis was, to paraphrase a former Congressman, "a terrible thing to waste" on consensus when it could be leveraged in a Yes/No vote to reach far beyond what is needed to solve Portland's most pressing problems. If, on the other hand, the voters were to separately support two, or three or all four of the Commission's recommendations. that would have bolstered the result and given the city's leaders more of mandate for proceeding with implementation. But the result Portlanders will get now, like the campaigns forming on both sides, will be unnecessarily contentious and divisive.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I think the Charter Commission owns a lot of this late-stage fiasco. The issues that surfaced with the City Council were not unknown to the Charter Commission, it's just that Charter Commission's collective mind was made up many months ago.
The clearest evidence was that rather than review and seriously consider public comment, the Commission took "straw" votes a scant 24 hours after the comment period closed, making only the minor "tie breaker" change. Their irrelevant public comment period, as well as their meeting with commissioners in mid-May, wasn't about listening, but rather defending some ill-considered proposals. Now, faced with opposition that has awakened the press, Charter Commissioners have attacked critics as "defending the status quo" or "protecting those in power" rather than acknowledging serious concerns that were raised throughout their process that they consciously ignored. Putting all the reforms into one ballot question is entirely on them.
The Sightline Institute covered the guts of charter reform voting methods in 2021, Kristine Eberhard's articles are still worth reading, they explain the MGGG voting research.
And I wrote an "in the weeds" charter reform article for BikePortland.org on June 27.
Hi Bob!
I can’t answer your questions about what information was included in the progress report or why. I can just say that the commission’s intent was clearly communicated in a number of public meetings. As an independent writer with a limited reach I have tried to draw attention to the process since February because of how significant this vote is for Portland. I started my newsletter primarily because local reporters weren’t providing running coverage. Perhaps if they had, the public wouldn’t be so surprised by the outcome of the charter review process.
To be fair, although I too was disappointed to see the hands-off approach from the Council and I share your frustration with the belated coverage by the media., the Commission created the conflict we're witnessing now when, late in the process, it decided to combine all of its recommended changes in one take-it-or-leave-it package. Had the Commission not done so, I think we would be seeing a more civil and nuanced debate over the different elements of the reform package. Their recommendations could have been presented in four discrete proposals that would have worked by themselves or in combination with the others: (1) City administrator supervised by mayor; (2) expanded city council, elected by district, with mayor's role clarified; (3) the two versions of ranked choice voting proposed for citywide and district candidates, although this may have warranted separate proposals; and, (4) the policy priorities for the mayor and administrator. My sense is that a super-majority of Portlanders would be on board for (1) from the start, and the debate on the remaining pieces would have been more substantive and less likely to leave them with a failed reform effort. It appears the Commission decided that Portland's crisis was, to paraphrase a former Congressman, "a terrible thing to waste" on consensus when it could be leveraged in a Yes/No vote to reach far beyond what is needed to solve Portland's most pressing problems. If, on the other hand, the voters were to separately support two, or three or all four of the Commission's recommendations. that would have bolstered the result and given the city's leaders more of mandate for proceeding with implementation. But the result Portlanders will get now, like the campaigns forming on both sides, will be unnecessarily contentious and divisive.
Thanks for your coverage. It has been well done.
While I agree with the sentiment here, I think the Charter Commission owns a lot of this late-stage fiasco. The issues that surfaced with the City Council were not unknown to the Charter Commission, it's just that Charter Commission's collective mind was made up many months ago.
The clearest evidence was that rather than review and seriously consider public comment, the Commission took "straw" votes a scant 24 hours after the comment period closed, making only the minor "tie breaker" change. Their irrelevant public comment period, as well as their meeting with commissioners in mid-May, wasn't about listening, but rather defending some ill-considered proposals. Now, faced with opposition that has awakened the press, Charter Commissioners have attacked critics as "defending the status quo" or "protecting those in power" rather than acknowledging serious concerns that were raised throughout their process that they consciously ignored. Putting all the reforms into one ballot question is entirely on them.