City Council deadlock exposes dysfunction
Governance, qualifications seemingly ignored amid personal attacks, race-baiting
After eight excruciating hours of debate and nine deadlocked votes on Jan. 7, followed by another 40 minutes of futile deliberation the next day, Portland’s City Council has failed to select its president for 2026. What should have been a straightforward affirmation of democratic norms instead became an embarrassment for our city and our new form of government, exposing both structural flaws and troubling behavior inside City Hall.
On the first day, the 12 council members were split 6-6 on their support to reelect Elana Pirtle-Guiney or elevate Sameer Kanal. On the second day, Councilor Eric Zimmerman nominated both Loretta Smith and Steve Novick. Discussion was interrupted to receive a briefing on a shooting that had occurred that afternoon—an illustration of how pressing city issues continued while the council remained deadlocked.
Personal attacks and race card
The repeated tie votes exposed a deeper problem. What should have been an election focused on leadership qualifications and governance style devolved into personal attacks and the use of the race card. Several self-described progressive councilors—the “Peacocks”—suggested that opposition to Sameer Kanal was rooted in racial bias rather than in concerns about leadership style, temperament, or the ability to preside impartially. This framing displaced substantive debate and recast disagreement as prejudice.
Compounding matters were allegations that Portland Police Association President Aaron Schmautz had contacted councilors to pressure them against voting for Kanal. These claims were made publicly without supporting evidence and were denied. The suggestion of improper police union influence was used to question the legitimacy of opposing votes rather than to engage with councilors’ stated reasoning.
These comments also point to a broader inconsistency. Several of the councilors who objected most loudly to alleged contact from the police union have routinely welcomed, and publicly cited, outreach from advocacy organizations, labor groups and political allies aligned with Peacock policy priorities. Civic engagement is treated as appropriate when it supports their positions, but portrayed as improper when it comes from law enforcement or organizations they oppose. That double standard undermines the claim that the issue is influence itself, rather than which voices are permitted to participate in the political process
Comments by Vice President Tiffany Koyama Lane—referring to councilors as being “scared of the dark-skinned man on the council”—and by Councilor Angelita Morillo, who implied that police pressure was being used to block “a man of color that has worked on policy accountability issues,” further escalated tensions. These statements framed disagreement as racial animus and narrowed the space for candid discussion of a candidate’s qualifications.
The second day managed to sink even lower.
Councilor Morillo accused the six non-Peacock councilors of racism, immaturity, and bad faith. In a moment that was as revealing as it was inappropriate, Morillo mocked colleagues with an ageist comment: “Because I am not as old as you, I will sit here and I won’t have to go to the bathroom for the vote.”
This and other comments delivered from the dais during a public meeting were beneath the office and emblematic of how quickly this debate abandoned substance for cheap shots and performative grievance.
The charter’s mathematical mistake
This debacle underscores what many of us predicted from the beginning: The charter commission’s insistence on an even number of council members was fundamentally flawed. Most city councils—like those in Seattle, Salem, Sacramento and San Diego—avoid even numbers precisely to prevent deadlock. Nine tied votes on a single issue in one day is not governance—it’s paralysis.
Portland deserves better than a government designed to malfunction.
Mayor’s missing tiebreaker
Portland voters were assured that the mayor’s tiebreaking vote would prevent paralysis. Instead, a city attorney opinion, given during a similar deadlock in 2025, held that the mayor does not break a tie in the election of a council president.
That interpretation contrasts with the charter’s plain language, as approved by the voters, which states that the mayor has the responsibility to “vote on matters before the Council in case of a tie, when the Mayor casts the deciding vote.”
While the city attorney’s interpretation may carry institutional authority, it does not change what voters were told or what the charter plainly says. If the intent was to exclude leadership elections from the mayor’s tiebreaking role, that limitation should have been explicit in the charter. It was not.
The consequence is public confusion, institutional paralysis and growing skepticism that this new form of government was adequately thought through.
Emphasizing governance
Amid the chaos and inflammatory rhetoric, six councilors demonstrated restraint, seriousness and a commitment to governing rather than grandstanding that Portland desperately needs. Councilors Smith, Novick, Zimmerman, Olivia Clark, Dan Ryan and Elana Pirtle-Guiney refused to be bullied by accusations of racism or swayed by caucus pressure. They evaluated the candidates for president on their merits, considered questions of temperament and fairness and voted their conscience.
Thanks are due for their leadership and common sense during an otherwise dispiriting episode.
Councilor Novick articulated the central concern clearly: A close-knit caucus like the Peacocks that coordinates privately and votes as a bloc raises serious questions about whether one of its members can wield the president’s gavel neutrally. This isn’t about ideology—it’s about institutional integrity. The fact that all six Peacock members are currently under investigation by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission only reinforces these concerns.
Path forward
Portland’s new government is barely a year old and already we’re seeing troubling impulses. We need a city government designed to function, not to deadlock. The city needs a council capable of addressing urgent public issues while maintaining professional standards of debate. Effective governance requires structures that allow decisions to be made and norms that permit disagreement without personal accusation, insults or smears.
The six councilors who stood firm against pressure and intimidation deserve our thanks. Now they need our continued support as they work to make Portland’s government functional, fair and focused on the real challenges facing our city.
Whether this deadlock becomes a lesson that leads to structural clarification and improved conduct—or a pattern that repeats—remains an open question.
This failure was avoidable. What Portland and our elected officials learn from it will matter.
Bob Weinstein is a former mayor of Ketchikan, Alaska, and a retired teacher. He ran for Portland City Council District 4 in 2024.
 |
|
I would be delighted to see the president of the police union lobbying City Council. One of Portland’s core problems is that too many of the city’s adult stakeholders—business owners, managers, professionals, and people responsible for public order—have withdrawn from civic life, often after being told, explicitly or implicitly, that their participation is suspect. The result is a City Hall echo chamber dominated by progressive activists and career nonprofit or public-sector professionals, many of whom have little experience with the practical demands of running organizations, balancing risk, or enforcing rules in the real world.
City government does not improve by narrowing the range of voices it hears. It improves when more interests participate openly and transparently. Portland needs *more*, not less, lobbying, testimony, and candidacies from the city’s business and professional sectors, including law enforcement.
The Portland Police Association has not always been a constructive actor, and criticism of its past conduct is fair. But the remedy for institutional failure is reform and accountability, not banishment. Excluding representatives of law and order from legitimate civic engagement does not make the city more just or democratic—it makes it more insulated, more ideological, and ultimately less governable.
A city that treats engagement by business and law-enforcement leaders as illegitimate should not be surprised when it ends up governed by people who have never had to make a payroll, enforce a rule, or take responsibility for consequences.
Those feckless local “opinion makers” who endorsed the recommendations of the Charter Commission were warned repeatedly by experienced politicians from across the country that the proposed Charter reforms would lead to chaos and dysfunction. But clearly not enough Portlanders listened before casting their votes for this absurd governmental structure that was doomed from the outset.