Very interesting. Why can't the council members speak more openly about this agreement- at least about the process itself that culminated in a bad deal for the public.? Did they sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), or is there some other reason Portlanders are being kept in the dark?
It also raises another question: would the City Administrator have signed this agreement without at least some understanding with, or blessing from, those two council members.
It's worth revisiting what Mitch Green said about NDAs and secret negotiations when it came to the Moda renovation:
"The public deserves transparency and accountability - not backroom deals. I was recently asked to join a small group of councilors to stay close to the talks as the admin enters negotiation. A condition of being in this group would be a commitment to honor an NDA between the city and the team. I refused. The point of an NDA is to keep details secret, which is the opposite of what we should be doing with this project. If you want the public to support using public money to remodel a stadium, then you need to make the case to them in public about why using those funds is better than some alternative. I join my colleague @councilorkoyamalane in rejecting the NDA as she has pointed out, transparency is a core City value."
Those are important principles. Given that stance, it's fair to ask: If transparency is a "core City value" when negotiating a deal involving the Moda Center, why isn't it equally important when negotiating an agreement that could reverse a unanimous 12-0 City Council decision and dramatically affect Forest Park? Why does the same commitment to openness not seem to apply here, with PGE's plan to clearcut Forest Park moving forward phase by phase?
Transparency shouldn't depend on the subject matter. If backroom negotiations are unacceptable for a sports arena, they should be unacceptable when the future of one of Portland's most treasured natural resources is at stake.
At this point, the reason the City enlisted Novick and Green is unknown, but they seem like logical choices. Both council members have strong environmental credentials, and Novick’s background as an environmental lawyer would make him a reasonable participant in negotiations involving a complex land use and environmental dispute. Green’s experience with the Bonneville Power Administration may also have provided valuable expertise on transmission infrastructure and grid reliability. Politically, involving council members from different wings of the Council could also lend broader credibility to any agreement the City ultimately presents to the Council.
Regardless of one’s view of the project, bringing these two council members into the negotiations appears to have been a prudent decision by the Mayor and City Administrator—assuming they ultimately explain and publicly support the agreement. Their involvement would demonstrate that the negotiations were not conducted solely by City staff, but also included elected officials representing different perspectives within the Council. It also makes it harder to conclude that the City Administrator was acting alone or negotiating a backroom deal. If council members with different backgrounds and political perspectives were directly involved, it suggests the negotiations included broader political oversight.
If their expertise was needed then this entire examination process should have been conducted in the open. "Behind closed doors" is a poor way for an elected official to demonstrate they can be trusted. Each party gained something, otherwise, there is no discussion. Sorry, this stinks.
I agree that transparency is important. At the same time, confidential mediation is a common feature of litigation because it allows parties to negotiate candidly. The more important question, in my view, is whether the final agreement and the City’s reasons for supporting it are ultimately presented and debated in public before any final decision is made.
If that expertise was needed, the parties should have hired experts who are not also going to vote on this. As a former Portland city planner (but not an attorney) I would consider it illegal ex parte contact.
Their participation raises an interesting procedural question. If they ultimately vote on the matter, I’d be interested in understanding the City Attorney’s analysis of the ex parte rules and whether recusal would be appropriate. As I’ve noted in earlier comments, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds if and when it returns to the City Council.
For what it’s worth, I’m actually opposed to running new transmission lines through Forest Park. I’m simply struggling to understand the criticism of the City Administrator for negotiating a settlement on behalf of the City. Based on what has become public so far, it seems premature to characterize this as a “backroom deal.”
Get rid of those two…..this whole thing stinks!!….why cant the public be involved and informed with decisions about a public park? This should be a simple fact based discussion…..instead it’s turned into some flip-flop mess that no one will be satisfied with the outcome. It’s just not good leadership from our public officials. Vote them out!
If the city expects its citizens to trust the integrity of its council members, "behind closed doors" is a poor choice. Trust but verify. These two individuals were chosen which suggests they had something to deliver and something to gain. Sorry, transparency matters and these two have provided the necessary reason for voting against them.
I received the same canned message from Green's office and an offer to meet to discuss "process" to which I replied as stated below. No response back from anyone thus far:
"Frankly that does not absolve city officials from operating with full transparency when it comes to representing public concerns and working to protect Portland's long term interest.
I'm happy to meet and to hopefully include other environmental groups/members of the public in an attempt to return this to being a public process. However, I do not believe a discussion about "process" is actually the issue on the table, or would address the forest for the trees, as it were. The core issue remains that public input has been seemingly not represented/disregarded in a private mediation session where the public, city council and environmental representatives were not included. Call it structured mitigation or closed backroom dealings is a matter of semantics. The belief was that this stage of private "mediation" it meant the public's POV would be actively represented and require PGE to look for and propose for other alternatives, not just to go ahead and give them the initial green light to dismiss public/city council concerns, spend a little more to plant a few more shrubs after they kill off irreplaceable old growth trees to hopefully pacify the critics, while continue to plug away on the plan to develop sections of Forest Park without concern to public safety or environmental repercussions. That might be good for PGE's bottom line, but it is not in the public or the Park's long term interest, as the city council vote, the public and environmental groups have made clear.
Exactly which environmental groups were at the table during this private session? How were they selected/invited? How were their views and input evaluated and taken into account? What were those views? What other alternatives did PGE offer vs. developing sections of Forest Park? Why have those alternatives not been presented? How have/are the concerns raised by city council and credible environmental groups being addressed? There are plenty of questions around this issue that need to be addressed and it would be great to have additional insight related to them and many more.
If you would like to meet and further clarify/provide insight with that focus in mind and include other interested parties/attendees, please let me know and we can schedule a time. I'd also like to invite representatives from the Bird Alliance of Oregon, Forest Park Conservancy, Hoyt Arboretum and the Sierra Club of Oregon, Willamette Riverkeepers, among others, to join us for this discussion, again in the interest of full transparency."
Wait, what, Mitch involved in secret back room negotiations? Sounds like a Mt Hood project!
Very interesting. Why can't the council members speak more openly about this agreement- at least about the process itself that culminated in a bad deal for the public.? Did they sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), or is there some other reason Portlanders are being kept in the dark?
It also raises another question: would the City Administrator have signed this agreement without at least some understanding with, or blessing from, those two council members.
It's worth revisiting what Mitch Green said about NDAs and secret negotiations when it came to the Moda renovation:
"The public deserves transparency and accountability - not backroom deals. I was recently asked to join a small group of councilors to stay close to the talks as the admin enters negotiation. A condition of being in this group would be a commitment to honor an NDA between the city and the team. I refused. The point of an NDA is to keep details secret, which is the opposite of what we should be doing with this project. If you want the public to support using public money to remodel a stadium, then you need to make the case to them in public about why using those funds is better than some alternative. I join my colleague @councilorkoyamalane in rejecting the NDA as she has pointed out, transparency is a core City value."
Those are important principles. Given that stance, it's fair to ask: If transparency is a "core City value" when negotiating a deal involving the Moda Center, why isn't it equally important when negotiating an agreement that could reverse a unanimous 12-0 City Council decision and dramatically affect Forest Park? Why does the same commitment to openness not seem to apply here, with PGE's plan to clearcut Forest Park moving forward phase by phase?
Transparency shouldn't depend on the subject matter. If backroom negotiations are unacceptable for a sports arena, they should be unacceptable when the future of one of Portland's most treasured natural resources is at stake.
At this point, the reason the City enlisted Novick and Green is unknown, but they seem like logical choices. Both council members have strong environmental credentials, and Novick’s background as an environmental lawyer would make him a reasonable participant in negotiations involving a complex land use and environmental dispute. Green’s experience with the Bonneville Power Administration may also have provided valuable expertise on transmission infrastructure and grid reliability. Politically, involving council members from different wings of the Council could also lend broader credibility to any agreement the City ultimately presents to the Council.
Regardless of one’s view of the project, bringing these two council members into the negotiations appears to have been a prudent decision by the Mayor and City Administrator—assuming they ultimately explain and publicly support the agreement. Their involvement would demonstrate that the negotiations were not conducted solely by City staff, but also included elected officials representing different perspectives within the Council. It also makes it harder to conclude that the City Administrator was acting alone or negotiating a backroom deal. If council members with different backgrounds and political perspectives were directly involved, it suggests the negotiations included broader political oversight.
If their expertise was needed then this entire examination process should have been conducted in the open. "Behind closed doors" is a poor way for an elected official to demonstrate they can be trusted. Each party gained something, otherwise, there is no discussion. Sorry, this stinks.
I agree that transparency is important. At the same time, confidential mediation is a common feature of litigation because it allows parties to negotiate candidly. The more important question, in my view, is whether the final agreement and the City’s reasons for supporting it are ultimately presented and debated in public before any final decision is made.
If that expertise was needed, the parties should have hired experts who are not also going to vote on this. As a former Portland city planner (but not an attorney) I would consider it illegal ex parte contact.
Their participation raises an interesting procedural question. If they ultimately vote on the matter, I’d be interested in understanding the City Attorney’s analysis of the ex parte rules and whether recusal would be appropriate. As I’ve noted in earlier comments, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds if and when it returns to the City Council.
For what it’s worth, I’m actually opposed to running new transmission lines through Forest Park. I’m simply struggling to understand the criticism of the City Administrator for negotiating a settlement on behalf of the City. Based on what has become public so far, it seems premature to characterize this as a “backroom deal.”
Get rid of those two…..this whole thing stinks!!….why cant the public be involved and informed with decisions about a public park? This should be a simple fact based discussion…..instead it’s turned into some flip-flop mess that no one will be satisfied with the outcome. It’s just not good leadership from our public officials. Vote them out!
Excellent. Thank you.
If the city expects its citizens to trust the integrity of its council members, "behind closed doors" is a poor choice. Trust but verify. These two individuals were chosen which suggests they had something to deliver and something to gain. Sorry, transparency matters and these two have provided the necessary reason for voting against them.
You know we are in trouble as a city when transparency has to be a core city council value. Scoundrels everywhere.
I received the same canned message from Green's office and an offer to meet to discuss "process" to which I replied as stated below. No response back from anyone thus far:
"Frankly that does not absolve city officials from operating with full transparency when it comes to representing public concerns and working to protect Portland's long term interest.
I'm happy to meet and to hopefully include other environmental groups/members of the public in an attempt to return this to being a public process. However, I do not believe a discussion about "process" is actually the issue on the table, or would address the forest for the trees, as it were. The core issue remains that public input has been seemingly not represented/disregarded in a private mediation session where the public, city council and environmental representatives were not included. Call it structured mitigation or closed backroom dealings is a matter of semantics. The belief was that this stage of private "mediation" it meant the public's POV would be actively represented and require PGE to look for and propose for other alternatives, not just to go ahead and give them the initial green light to dismiss public/city council concerns, spend a little more to plant a few more shrubs after they kill off irreplaceable old growth trees to hopefully pacify the critics, while continue to plug away on the plan to develop sections of Forest Park without concern to public safety or environmental repercussions. That might be good for PGE's bottom line, but it is not in the public or the Park's long term interest, as the city council vote, the public and environmental groups have made clear.
Exactly which environmental groups were at the table during this private session? How were they selected/invited? How were their views and input evaluated and taken into account? What were those views? What other alternatives did PGE offer vs. developing sections of Forest Park? Why have those alternatives not been presented? How have/are the concerns raised by city council and credible environmental groups being addressed? There are plenty of questions around this issue that need to be addressed and it would be great to have additional insight related to them and many more.
If you would like to meet and further clarify/provide insight with that focus in mind and include other interested parties/attendees, please let me know and we can schedule a time. I'd also like to invite representatives from the Bird Alliance of Oregon, Forest Park Conservancy, Hoyt Arboretum and the Sierra Club of Oregon, Willamette Riverkeepers, among others, to join us for this discussion, again in the interest of full transparency."