Let's go to Acme, order a bunch of The Commission, and pour them on copies of The Oregonian.

Rick Seifert has an idea you quote in your earlier post:

"My own hope is that any new proposal will get scrap of the present commission fiefdoms and give voters the chance to create a government that gives neighborhoods a formal, elected place at the city council table."

And perhaps the Charter Review Commission could have considered such options, Kyle, had not your boss' office said they couldn't because he wasn't willing to delay the Commission's work until his other project -- Community Connect -- was finished.

K beat me to it—what hasn't been explored is "a traditional strong mayor system" with neighborhood support. Something neighbors had a chance to help build, and something neighbors aren't turned off from by piles of funding from Portland's power players.

And I say someone nominate Rick Seifert to the new committee.

This proposal would require a huge change in the structure of the current neighborhood system - something several citizen committees have recommended against doing. Portland's Neighborhood Associations since their inclusion in the City's citizen involvement process in the 1970s have been avenues for participatory democracy. They are not intended to function as representative democracies, and many neighborhood volunteers have zero interest in making political decisions. They just want to get stuff done that makes a difference, today. Expanding the neighborhood improvement grants program would accomplish that, without another extended, costly debate about the form of government.

I'm not talking about a neighborhood congress—I'm talking about tapping smart people from the neighborhoods, as well as the kinds of folks who made up the previous committee, to craft a proposal that has wider support and isn't as messy.

I'm not talking about a neighborhood congress...

For the record, however, here's what Seifert is talking about:

"Any new charter should nurture and infuse that involvement in the city's governance by creating a much larger, neighborhood-accountable, neighborhood-elected commission."

Changing the form of government is not a top priority for most neighbors, Amy. Voting down various proposals eight times surely shows something. Many "smart people from the neighborhoods" would say, "Enough, already, I have more important things to take care of that will make a real difference", if someone asked them to serve on the next Charter Commission. The only reason some would consider it would be to advocate for making housekeeping changes only.

I was afraid this would happen when the Council referred a flawed measure to the ballot. The same as happened the previous seven times: people saying, "Oh, the voters just didn't like this proposal".

I believe most Portlanders like our commission form of government. We do. We think it's not broken and doesn't need a major fix.

Maybe the Council should refer another measure to the ballot in November 2008. It would ask: "Should the Charter Commission consider a new form of government for Portland's City Council?", without saying what that might be. Maybe then, No would mean No.

That ballot idea's a smart one, Amanda. I, for one, would prefer to see a council organized around committees instead of bureaus—I think that'd be easier for citizens to navigate. It's my job—my paid job—to navigate this city. And after a year and a half, I'm still perplexed and confused every day. I imagine it's worse for regular citizens who don't have the luxury of being paid to figure these things out. That might not be an inherant flaw of the commission form of government, but I do feel like we need one person in the city charged with standardizing some things—maybe that's a mayor, maybe that's a bureaucrat in an existing bureau.

b!X—Seifert's proposal sounds like code for districts, another thing I'd like to see.

Amy, there are many people in Portland who would like to change one thing or another. The problem for the form of government Charter change proponents, is that there are maybe 20% in favor of any one component. Some, but not a majority, like districts. Some others like the stronger mayor piece. Some want a Neighborhood Congress, or Council-led committees, or a Chief Administrative Officer. And some of the people who like districts vote against a Charter change with districts plus one of the other pieces. There isn't any one combination model that the majority of Portlanders like better than the one we have now.

So even if my suggestion were implemented, to put an overall question on the ballot in November 2008, the only useful answer would be if the voters said No. If the result was Yes, there could still be a lot of time spent/wasted on defining varied new structures that would quite likely be voted down on the specifics.

I just saw Bob Ball drunk off his ass over at the Rocky Butte Pub at ~88th and Sandy! He had dried crusty yellow stains on the bib of some rank overalls, and was just about to get his ass bounced!

Or it could have been someone who just looked like him.

As long as we're suggesting referrals for the next Charter Review Commission, here's mine: Refer to the voters a measure which would institute the double majority rule for all future referals to change the Charter.

Refer to the voters a measure which would institute the double majority rule for all future referals to change the Charter.

Yes.

Mark, for the record it was not me you spotted. :)

I am relieved to hear that, although I would have to admit that I suspected as much. You should go to the Rocky Butte Pub sometime, though -- it is where all of the Grotto nuns hang out after matins.