Scott,
I think you are right on and I totally agree with your approach. I hope Amanda will weigh in also.

Better idea: Put all the ideas on the 2008 ballot. Where ideas conflict, the one that gets the highest votes wins.

That's a great idea, but there are so many variations of each form of government that the options would either need to be drastically simplified, or expanded to the point of the vote being a crapshoot.

Of course, simplification and crapshootification could happen no matter what.

Better yet, separate some of these issues. Should I really be voting for 800 wildly-disparate things when I vote "yes?"

And, for the love of Pete [Wentz], at least hold the February 7 meeting at night, when there are likely to be a few more speakers on the issue.

Should I really be voting for 800 wildly-disparate things when I vote "yes?"

Well, actually, yes and no. Any comprehensive Charter change would need to be internally self-consistent. So we certainly don't want a separate vote on every single detail, otherwise we might end up with a Charter that contradicts itself and is missing crucial pieces because voters said "yes" to one bit and "no" to another related and important bit.

Hey b!x, hadn't seen your Thursday posts, but, yes, we are in agreement. Now let's unite our powers and take over the city.

Scott, I really appreciate your thoughtful reporting on this subject. It is a complex, and at times, confusing set of recommendations and options.

I guess for me, the biggest element ais who the decision makers are on council -what kind of leadership and decisions they offer. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as being able to codify in policy common sense, leadership, and integrity.

Finally, I agree with you about the May push. I think the Mayor's office and City Council have already done a mediocre job at public outreach and involvement on this issue. They are setting themselves up for failure if they think it will be passed by voters so soon.

Oh, and one more thing: I think someone raised the question as to why the proposal does not include the division of geographic areas amongst council. Councils that have this are often rife with turf wars - it becomes more about which neighborhoods are winners and losers and which have more political influence based on the muscle of a particular councilman and political funding contributions of constituents. My council even got busted at one point for selling each other zoning rights from/to different neighborhoods. Classic machine politics at its worst.

The proposal doesn't include district representation because the Ball proposal tanked, and proponents of the Strong Mayor structure believe they have a better chance of getting it passed without adding in representatives by District.

I completely agree with your analysis and position, Scott. I almost lost my lunch when Dan Saltzman said "the campaign trail is the best way to have informed discussion" at the hearing last week. Sure, if by "informed discussion", he means "saying the same three poll-tested soundbites over and over", with no opportunity for people in the audience to weigh in with their opinions in a way that might affect the details in the Charter.

The process so far has been fine. But no other Commission expects their final recommendation to be adopted verbatim by Council, with very limited public review and perhaps no ability to effect changes in the recommendation. Let's get real, the current proposal includes keeping ancient powers for City Council on censoring obscene material, and "punishing paupers". Do we really want to re-affirm those policies in May? I don't.

For those interested, Portland's Future Charter, the replacement for my olf gangblog on Charter reform, is now online. I haven't yet imported the material from the old site. And, yes, I will be making sure to point to other places discussing Charter reform as things crop up, including Blogtown.

While I disagree with some of the specific changes the mayor is proposing, I agree that a political campaign is the most effective way to get voters involved. People respond to campaigns -- especially bad ballot measures (such as the unaccountable chief executive bureaucrat Potter is proposing).

Let's face it, charter reform is boring. I'm not going sacrifice a free evening or weekend (let alone, take time off work) to attend a wonkish community meeting that will probably dominated by people advocating their own agendas and politics. Town hall meetings (like those seen on The Simpsons) are a great notion, but the reality is that too few people will show-up to represent the city.

I would agree, Scott, that the timing of an election to change Portland's form of government should be at an election where the highest percentage of voters actually vote. Your suggestion that a vote occur in 2008 in May or November seems more responsible than the current proposal.

As far as me cosponsoring a resolution to do that, I am a little more hesitant.

One reason for my hesitation is based upon an exchange that occurred at last weeks council session discussing the charter review commissions proposals. At least two questions were asked and not adequately answered by the charter review commission.

The first question was "what is the problem you are attempting to resolve with your recommendations?'

The second question was "what city did you take inspiration or guidance from in making your recommendation to change Portland's form of government?"

I do believe those were both fair questions. I was disappointed that no substantive answer was given to either question.

If there is a general consensus in the community that Portland's form of government must change, I am interested in listening to what the stated goal of such a change would be.

However, I have heard no hue and cry -or for that matter, a hue and wimper- asking that we overhaul Portland's time tested form of government.

I appreciate that Mayor Potter and former Mayor's Katz and Clark support the proposed changes to the city charter. However, I don't think it should be surprising to anyone that each of them believe that giving the office of Mayor more power makes sense...at least to them.

...a wonkish community meeting that will probably dominated by people advocating their own agendas and politics...

Yes, because that would never be the case in a political campaign.