Portlanders Deserve Better: Portland Charter Reform
Vadim Mozyrsky believes that Portland's government needs reform but is reportedly launching a new PAC in opposition to the Charter Commission's proposals. He explains how Portland can do better.
Over the past few years, Portland has lurched from one crisis to another: a housing emergency in its seventh year and counting; a homelessness crisis that seems to only be growing in scope and tragedy; a crime and gun violence crisis that has seen shootings increase by 241% in a mere three years; and a mental health and drug addiction crisis that has far outpaced any discernible benefit from Measure 110 funding. Many people, including myself, lay the blame squarely on our antiquated commission form of government that encourages the siloing of government functions rather than a coordinated, long-term response.
This year the 20-member Charter Commission had the opportunity to re-shape city government to tackle these concerns and place Portland on solid footing toward recovery and eventual prosperity. Unfortunately, the proposed hodgepodge of special-interest changes to Portland’s government and elections system throws open the door to a host of negative consequences that promise to further mire the city in bureaucratic deadlock.
The Commission’s proposals include the hiring of a city manager who would be supervised by the mayor and could be fired by either the mayor or city council; a twelve-member city council elected from four multimember districts using proportional ranked choice voting; and a mayor who would have no check-and-balance veto authority over council actions, not vote with city council, but would have a tie breaking vote when necessary. This proposal would replace our unique form of government, long discarded by other municipalities, by a different unique, experimental framework that has not been tried with proven benefits in the United States.
Historically, American jurisdictions have been moving away from multi-member district elections. For statewide elections, 41 states used multimember districts in 1962. Now only 10 states partially use multimember districts. A main driver for this dramatic decrease is that multimember districts reduced the chance of fairly electing minority representatives. The 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act mandated the use of single-member districts for all states with two or more seats, exempting only Hawaii and New Mexico. By then most states had already abandoned multimember districts because they diluted the electoral power of racial minority groups.
More recently, in 2002 Baltimore passed a measure by a nearly 2-1 margin to end multimember districts. The move to single-member districts was intended to save money, make it easier for less-established candidates to get elected, and increase accountability. These are all ostensibly goals of Portland’s Charter Commission. Yet the current proposal pairs multimember districts with proportional rank choice voting wherein candidates only need 25% of the vote to win election. Think about that – with such a low threshold, every incumbent that has recently lost an election would remain on city council under the new plan.
On top of the aforementioned novelty and uncertainty, the current proposal asks voters to back a measure without knowing key specifics. The cost of the measure is unclear. Estimates range up to $43.8 million over three years, not including the City’s matching campaign finance contributions. The salaries of council members is left up to a future committee. Perhaps most importantly, district boundaries are relegated to a future commission to decide. Portlanders are asked to vote on how they will be represented without actually knowing who will comprise their districts.
Now more than ever, Portlanders seek accountability on the part of their elected officials. The proposed charter changes will hamper that goal. Moving from electing four council members city-wide to electing three council members in districts the size of Salem or Eugene would do little to increase accountability. Although the current proposal envisions electing 12 councilors concurrently beginning in 2024, there is no outline on how responsibilities will be divided or power sharing will work.
All these changes are bundled in one large measure so that Portlanders can’t democratically choose amongst different options. Portland deserves better. A “No” vote on the proposed measure does not close the door on charter reform – it’s an opportunity to build a better house. Beginning in 2023, we will work through City Council or the initiative petition process to quickly provide voters an actual choice on workable government and election reform rather than experiment with Portland’s future.
 | A guest post by
|
Mr. Mozyrsky appears quite disingenuous when he describes Charter commission's proposals as a "hodgepodge of special-interest changes." That is not a fair or accurate characterization of Commission’s work and the majority decision (17 out of 20) for reform by the independent Charter Commission. The Commission deliberated for over 18 months, heard from hundreds of Portlanders, and weighed the pros and cons of various changes to the structure of government that could serve to advance, balance, and integrate goals related to equity, accountability, and participation. There is not perfect "structure of government" but the Commissioners landed on a suite of reforms that address the worst problems with Portland's existing, outdated form of government. They have sought a more equitable representation for a City- unlike most others in the US- where racial and ethnic minorities are diffuse rather than concentrated. This is why the vast majority of the Commission proposed multi-member districts; they will provide more equitable representation on the City Council for the foreseeable future.
There is not perfect structure of government; we must evaluate the proposed changes relative to the existing government structure and the unique conditions in Portland at this historic moment. That has been the Charter Commission's work.
There is lots in Mr. Mozyrksy's arguments here that appear want to scare Portlanders into opposing needed and beneficial change. If Commission's proposal is unique to the United States, it is because thankfully they explored municipal governance across the globe and did not limit their research to just models within the United States. Moreover, it is entirely appropriate that the Charter Commission did not craft the district boundaries under their proposal if for no other reason that many Charter Commissioners- including Mr. Mozyrksy- were current or past candidates for City Council. The districts will be drawn by an independent commission supported with the appropriate technical information specific to this purpose, as they should.
There is more that could be said of Mr. Mozyrsky's claims here. I very much hope The Way publishes the counter view.
I grew up in Portland and have observed Portland's antiquated, inefficient government since the 1980s. It may have served Portland well at one time; it clearly does not any longer. I believe the Charter Commission has served Portlanders very well in developing a set of thoughtful, balanced and, very much overdue, suite of charter amendments. If adopted by the voters, they will provide a more unified and integrated city administration accountable to a much more equitable system of representation and more participatory and meaningful voting process.