I went to a Council Meeting last month and from that experience can easily imagine "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.”
In that meeting Morillo was disrespectful of her colleagues and of the Mayor.
The "Peacocks" are an odd group, they remind me of high school student government. Green in his "I can talk and chew gum at the same time" WW interview, swore he deeply cares about Portland - Sorry, but I don't believe him. They seem like a truly mean spirited group of people.
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.
It is a little known fact that the private City Club of Portland created the blueprint for the city charter that we are living with today. Sure, the charter commission did some detailed work around the edges, but the basic structure was in place before the charter review process got underway.
The proof is in two City Club publications "New Government for Today’s Portland: Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System," City Club of Portland Bulletin Vol. 101, No. 2, February 10, 2019, and "New Government for Today's Portland. Rethinking how We Vote," August 7, 2020.
As the de-facto architect of the city charter, the City Club expended more effort on implementing equity than in making Portland city government more efficient.
I do recall that you are correct. I can't see, however, how giving district candidates who placed second and third in polling for their respective district co-equal voting power with those who placed first in their district polling constitutes "equity." For me, that is a severe manipulation of the definition of democracy to achieve minority power. How would leftists like it if this distorted interpretation of rank order voting produced a slew of right-wing Neo-Nazis who placed second and third in multiple districts??
Yes and then the City Club head became the head staffer for the Charter Commission. Essentially the fix was in before Portlanders had a chance to weigh in. And why the charter commission ignored public comment on its final plan which significantly supported separate votes on manager, districts, and form of voting, and also overwhelmingly supported a mayoral veto.
Great writeup on what transpired and how problematic the new charter structure is. Agree that the non Peacock commissioners deserve thanks and support for holding fast.
Bob, In addition to the importance of the subject, the solid detail and basically good "reporting", it is also very well written. Thank you.
The campaign against this change in government pointed out the flaws in the proposed system, but was basically overcome by massive falsehoods and out of state funding using Portland as a guinea pig for extreme ideology. I hope this sad error can be corrected.
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.
Odd, Weinstein didn't mention the central insanity of the new charter--three councilors from just four districts, each elected with just 25-percent of the vote. The charter commission made it plain that this was concocted to put more minorities into office (as though that wasn't happening with the old council)...but no one figured that it would enable an organized political minority to control the council via a manipulated vote.
Given the realities of rank choice voting, look for the socialists to take over the council after the next round of algorithmic elections.
No moderate voice in this town has the stones to start a movement to correct this flaw (depending on your POV) by putting the question to voters. Then again, never overestimate the intellect of the people who vote.
Just wait until this nutty distorted ranked choice system electing 3 officials per district ends up with neo-Nazis as the 2nd and 3rd choices in one or more districts. Then you’ll see some changes occur!
I hate to say it, but I believe you are correct. Too many Portland voters have drunk the leftist anti-business Kool-Aid that compels them to keep voting for idealistic, untested, inexperienced candidates who never took Econ 101. Again and again and again. It never ends. I’m a centrist and would love to see more sensible and smart people such as the late Nick Fish elected to the City Council. In running a city, there’s no such thing as liberal or conservative…it comes down to whether the government delivers on public safety, excellent public schools, fixing roads and potholes, picking up trash and cleaning up graffiti, providing clean water, and so on. It’s not political.
Amen, Bob. As to the counsel opinion that the Mayor may not cast a tie-breaking vote for Council President, cannot someone sue to overturn a clearly erroneous judgement? And 1 year is too short for a President to effect change. Is this term mandated in the charter?
And as a former Portland City Club member, I respect the research committee work - I was on a PCC evaluation of Obamacare for the homeless - but I resigned when young, white-guilt progressives changed the Charter. PCC no longer serves Portland, but its own agenda.
I think the City Attorney's interpretation of the tie breaking rule needs to be challenged at a minimum. I suspect he knows which side his bread is buttered on however.
“Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein calls the road, which was paid for by federal tax dollars, a waste of money that could have been used to fix his city's roads and sidewalks.”
Can those of us able to apply common sense please agree as a district that Mitch Green needs to be removed in the next election? Every district that wants to avoid falling further into stupidity and dysfunction should be making it a point to remove their DSA candidates as quickly as possible. What a pathetic bunch of people, but there they sit, “running” the city.
Do they have any idea of how little confidence we have in how this city is being run, dollars wasted, etc.? If we had a chance, we'd vote them all out and go back to the fewer representatives. 12 people trying to decide anything is a dumb idea.
Strong piece, Bob. Keep on it and keep on them. That Morillo would call others immature makes me laugh and cry simultaneously.
I went to a Council Meeting last month and from that experience can easily imagine "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.”
In that meeting Morillo was disrespectful of her colleagues and of the Mayor.
The "Peacocks" are an odd group, they remind me of high school student government. Green in his "I can talk and chew gum at the same time" WW interview, swore he deeply cares about Portland - Sorry, but I don't believe him. They seem like a truly mean spirited group of people.
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.
It is a little known fact that the private City Club of Portland created the blueprint for the city charter that we are living with today. Sure, the charter commission did some detailed work around the edges, but the basic structure was in place before the charter review process got underway.
The proof is in two City Club publications "New Government for Today’s Portland: Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System," City Club of Portland Bulletin Vol. 101, No. 2, February 10, 2019, and "New Government for Today's Portland. Rethinking how We Vote," August 7, 2020.
As the de-facto architect of the city charter, the City Club expended more effort on implementing equity than in making Portland city government more efficient.
I do recall that you are correct. I can't see, however, how giving district candidates who placed second and third in polling for their respective district co-equal voting power with those who placed first in their district polling constitutes "equity." For me, that is a severe manipulation of the definition of democracy to achieve minority power. How would leftists like it if this distorted interpretation of rank order voting produced a slew of right-wing Neo-Nazis who placed second and third in multiple districts??
Equity ≠ Equality
Yes and then the City Club head became the head staffer for the Charter Commission. Essentially the fix was in before Portlanders had a chance to weigh in. And why the charter commission ignored public comment on its final plan which significantly supported separate votes on manager, districts, and form of voting, and also overwhelmingly supported a mayoral veto.
I sure would like a list of the "opinion makers." It certainly wouldn't include both the O and WilllyWeek--who barely knew what was going on.
Great writeup on what transpired and how problematic the new charter structure is. Agree that the non Peacock commissioners deserve thanks and support for holding fast.
Bob, In addition to the importance of the subject, the solid detail and basically good "reporting", it is also very well written. Thank you.
The campaign against this change in government pointed out the flaws in the proposed system, but was basically overcome by massive falsehoods and out of state funding using Portland as a guinea pig for extreme ideology. I hope this sad error can be corrected.
This is an especially bad moment for deadlock given our need to move quickly to address economic concerns and promote housing production.
And to promote Public Safety!
Shout out to odd numbers!
Get rid of multi member districts entirely!
Hoping Mitch Green and Morillo find other jobs soon. Perhaps they should resign?
Have those two get real jobs like working people? Why do you think they are where they are? They like the $133K salaries, PERS and the perks.
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.
I could not agree more fully with your comments.
Odd, Weinstein didn't mention the central insanity of the new charter--three councilors from just four districts, each elected with just 25-percent of the vote. The charter commission made it plain that this was concocted to put more minorities into office (as though that wasn't happening with the old council)...but no one figured that it would enable an organized political minority to control the council via a manipulated vote.
Given the realities of rank choice voting, look for the socialists to take over the council after the next round of algorithmic elections.
No moderate voice in this town has the stones to start a movement to correct this flaw (depending on your POV) by putting the question to voters. Then again, never overestimate the intellect of the people who vote.
Just wait until this nutty distorted ranked choice system electing 3 officials per district ends up with neo-Nazis as the 2nd and 3rd choices in one or more districts. Then you’ll see some changes occur!
You will never get conservative voices elected in Portlandia. Too easy to array the ranked choice voting system against them.
I hate to say it, but I believe you are correct. Too many Portland voters have drunk the leftist anti-business Kool-Aid that compels them to keep voting for idealistic, untested, inexperienced candidates who never took Econ 101. Again and again and again. It never ends. I’m a centrist and would love to see more sensible and smart people such as the late Nick Fish elected to the City Council. In running a city, there’s no such thing as liberal or conservative…it comes down to whether the government delivers on public safety, excellent public schools, fixing roads and potholes, picking up trash and cleaning up graffiti, providing clean water, and so on. It’s not political.
Amen, Bob. As to the counsel opinion that the Mayor may not cast a tie-breaking vote for Council President, cannot someone sue to overturn a clearly erroneous judgement? And 1 year is too short for a President to effect change. Is this term mandated in the charter?
And as a former Portland City Club member, I respect the research committee work - I was on a PCC evaluation of Obamacare for the homeless - but I resigned when young, white-guilt progressives changed the Charter. PCC no longer serves Portland, but its own agenda.
I think the City Attorney's interpretation of the tie breaking rule needs to be challenged at a minimum. I suspect he knows which side his bread is buttered on however.
PS: These essays, critiques and comments are highly valuable to our City. Alan, can you not elevate them to the Council, or Willamette Week, etc? 🙏❤️
PPS: Bob as a former Mayor of Ketchikan, were you the architect of the $200m "Bridge to Nowhere"?? Just winding you up....😁
Nope. That was a borough (county) not city thing. And it was up to $483 million I think.
And they built a road on the airport side 3.3 miles to where the already canceled bridge itself would have been. CNN covered extensively.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/palin.road.to.nowhere/
“Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein calls the road, which was paid for by federal tax dollars, a waste of money that could have been used to fix his city's roads and sidewalks.”
Good on'ya!
Can those of us able to apply common sense please agree as a district that Mitch Green needs to be removed in the next election? Every district that wants to avoid falling further into stupidity and dysfunction should be making it a point to remove their DSA candidates as quickly as possible. What a pathetic bunch of people, but there they sit, “running” the city.
And please consider voting for Eli Arnold!
Just like Candace and Julia Meier intended.
Do they have any idea of how little confidence we have in how this city is being run, dollars wasted, etc.? If we had a chance, we'd vote them all out and go back to the fewer representatives. 12 people trying to decide anything is a dumb idea.