We’ve traded functional silos for something worse: a management layer that’s answerable to no one. Decisions get made further from the people they affect, with less transparency and fewer consequences for getting it wrong. The recent agreement to undo the 12-0 council decision on the first phase of PGE’S clearcut in Forest Park is a perfect example.
And if history is any guide, when it does go wrong, the people at the top won’t face the fallout. They’ll walk away with a golden parachute severance package while everyone else deals with the wreckage.
So called “Charter Reform’: The gift that keeps on giving. Portland City Government has become a miasma of self-dealing and grifting incompetence. The Doom Loop will not be averted until the swamp is drained but our so-called Charter Reform and the bad faith of many of our political actors has actually made that far less likely to occur.
It reminds me in many ways of the MAGA takeover in Washington. Accumulating power for personal and ideological power at the expense of the common tax paying citizenry.
I am energized by the support for the Blue Line, removing men from women's sports, a full review of all public spending and the encouragement of self-deportation as well as the expulsion of criminals.
Wednesday will place Fauci on the hot seat he deserves.
Reason #435 to give up on Portland. I’m sitting here on a Sunday morning examining why I haven’t left yet, like a lover in an abusive relationship. Just back from two weeks in Montana chasing the wily trout. I used to be proud to tell others I’m from Portland. Yet these past two weeks I felt sheepish, almost embarrassed to admit I was from Portland. Got asked several questions about the state of the city, the national perception of Portland is not positive.
I voted against the new charter, but one thing I like about the new system is being able to vote for council members who actually live in my part of town. I am not thrilled that our district extends into Southeast Portland, but I suppose that is a population-math problem.
The new system may provide greater accountability because our three district council members should be more accessible and responsive to the neighborhoods they represent, including neighborhood associations. If they fail at that task, district voters should have an easier time replacing them than under the old at-large system.
Under the old form of government, I was always puzzled by assigning elected council members to manage city bureaus. For example, it was difficult to see how someone like Chloe Eudaly was qualified to run a complex organization such as PBOT, particularly given the controversies surrounding her oversight of the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.
The old system assumed voters would elect council members capable of managing large public agencies. That was a bad assumption.
The opinion piece also blurs the line between public input and administrative control. Neighborhood associations should help shape the goals and character of a project, including the style and features of a neighborhood park. But they should not participate in every stage of the design process. Government cannot cater to every group at every step. At some point, elected officials must set policy and professional staff must implement it. Otherwise, endless consultation becomes a substitute for decision-making.
That does not mean the new system is working as well as it should. Bureau administrators should be visible, accessible, and engaged with neighborhood associations. The mayor and city administrator must hold bureau leadership accountable, while neighborhood associations can help identify when bureaus are not responding to community concerns. At the end of the day, the city administrator is an at-will employee, subject to whatever generous severance protections may be included in the employment agreement.
Accountability does not disappear because council members no longer manage bureaus directly. The council still sets policy, controls the budget, and can hold the city administrator responsible for performance.
Were the charter election held again today, I would probably vote in favor of the new system.
It was always there, in the "Progress Reports" issued by the charter commission, which was merely implementing marching orders from the City Club and the Coalition of Communities of Color. No one in local legacy media reported, or even unstood, what was cooking in the kitchen.
City Club/commission wanted "minorities" and what we got was a political party that gamed the "25-percent and you're elected" system. It wanted a powerless mayor; you got Wilson. It wanted a council with unlimited power; you get the current clown show. It wanted "professional" management; you got Raymond Lee III. (Hope we've got his future serance fee in the bank.)
And now you're stuck with a fatally flawed charter--only nine more years to go until the city hall insiders get to do it all over again.
If we’d simply taken the old system, removed the City Commissioners from managing bureaus, and added a City Manager actually responsible to the Mayor we would have been light-years ahead of the partisan cesspool that so-called Charter Reform has gifted us with.
My guess by your comments Scott, is that you are a relative newcomer to Portlandia.
This is so true. I've called and written City Administrator Raymond Lee and the Mayor about concerns regarding the Forest Park decision making process and as of yet, not even the courtesy of a reply. Radio silence is the reflection of how seriously they take public input. However, rather than diffusing an issue and hoping it will just go away, this kind of avoidance and non-response only makes tax paying citizens angrier and ready to either leave the city or vote out "public" officials and the tone-deaf administrators/managers they bring in. Portland needs politicians who not only listen, but are responsive and in tune with the the public's concerns. Should be common sense, but somehow Portland seems to be going backwards in this regard.
Twelve mini-mayors and their staff PLUS one Portland Mayor is not only failing but also an excessive bureaucracy for our shrinking city. We need to tighten our belt and gain accountability.
We’ve traded functional silos for something worse: a management layer that’s answerable to no one. Decisions get made further from the people they affect, with less transparency and fewer consequences for getting it wrong. The recent agreement to undo the 12-0 council decision on the first phase of PGE’S clearcut in Forest Park is a perfect example.
And if history is any guide, when it does go wrong, the people at the top won’t face the fallout. They’ll walk away with a golden parachute severance package while everyone else deals with the wreckage.
So called “Charter Reform’: The gift that keeps on giving. Portland City Government has become a miasma of self-dealing and grifting incompetence. The Doom Loop will not be averted until the swamp is drained but our so-called Charter Reform and the bad faith of many of our political actors has actually made that far less likely to occur.
It reminds me in many ways of the MAGA takeover in Washington. Accumulating power for personal and ideological power at the expense of the common tax paying citizenry.
I am energized by the support for the Blue Line, removing men from women's sports, a full review of all public spending and the encouragement of self-deportation as well as the expulsion of criminals.
Wednesday will place Fauci on the hot seat he deserves.
Reason #435 to give up on Portland. I’m sitting here on a Sunday morning examining why I haven’t left yet, like a lover in an abusive relationship. Just back from two weeks in Montana chasing the wily trout. I used to be proud to tell others I’m from Portland. Yet these past two weeks I felt sheepish, almost embarrassed to admit I was from Portland. Got asked several questions about the state of the city, the national perception of Portland is not positive.
I voted against the new charter, but one thing I like about the new system is being able to vote for council members who actually live in my part of town. I am not thrilled that our district extends into Southeast Portland, but I suppose that is a population-math problem.
The new system may provide greater accountability because our three district council members should be more accessible and responsive to the neighborhoods they represent, including neighborhood associations. If they fail at that task, district voters should have an easier time replacing them than under the old at-large system.
Under the old form of government, I was always puzzled by assigning elected council members to manage city bureaus. For example, it was difficult to see how someone like Chloe Eudaly was qualified to run a complex organization such as PBOT, particularly given the controversies surrounding her oversight of the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.
The old system assumed voters would elect council members capable of managing large public agencies. That was a bad assumption.
The opinion piece also blurs the line between public input and administrative control. Neighborhood associations should help shape the goals and character of a project, including the style and features of a neighborhood park. But they should not participate in every stage of the design process. Government cannot cater to every group at every step. At some point, elected officials must set policy and professional staff must implement it. Otherwise, endless consultation becomes a substitute for decision-making.
That does not mean the new system is working as well as it should. Bureau administrators should be visible, accessible, and engaged with neighborhood associations. The mayor and city administrator must hold bureau leadership accountable, while neighborhood associations can help identify when bureaus are not responding to community concerns. At the end of the day, the city administrator is an at-will employee, subject to whatever generous severance protections may be included in the employment agreement.
Accountability does not disappear because council members no longer manage bureaus directly. The council still sets policy, controls the budget, and can hold the city administrator responsible for performance.
Were the charter election held again today, I would probably vote in favor of the new system.
I have a nice bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn to sell ya.
Personal jabs aside, you have not actually rebutted my argument.
It was always there, in the "Progress Reports" issued by the charter commission, which was merely implementing marching orders from the City Club and the Coalition of Communities of Color. No one in local legacy media reported, or even unstood, what was cooking in the kitchen.
City Club/commission wanted "minorities" and what we got was a political party that gamed the "25-percent and you're elected" system. It wanted a powerless mayor; you got Wilson. It wanted a council with unlimited power; you get the current clown show. It wanted "professional" management; you got Raymond Lee III. (Hope we've got his future serance fee in the bank.)
And now you're stuck with a fatally flawed charter--only nine more years to go until the city hall insiders get to do it all over again.
If we’d simply taken the old system, removed the City Commissioners from managing bureaus, and added a City Manager actually responsible to the Mayor we would have been light-years ahead of the partisan cesspool that so-called Charter Reform has gifted us with.
My guess by your comments Scott, is that you are a relative newcomer to Portlandia.
This is so true. I've called and written City Administrator Raymond Lee and the Mayor about concerns regarding the Forest Park decision making process and as of yet, not even the courtesy of a reply. Radio silence is the reflection of how seriously they take public input. However, rather than diffusing an issue and hoping it will just go away, this kind of avoidance and non-response only makes tax paying citizens angrier and ready to either leave the city or vote out "public" officials and the tone-deaf administrators/managers they bring in. Portland needs politicians who not only listen, but are responsive and in tune with the the public's concerns. Should be common sense, but somehow Portland seems to be going backwards in this regard.
Twelve mini-mayors and their staff PLUS one Portland Mayor is not only failing but also an excessive bureaucracy for our shrinking city. We need to tighten our belt and gain accountability.