« Mayor Tom Potter Went to Bed Early | Main | Jaquiss At Acme »
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Politics Periodic Charter Review Winning by as Much as Form of Government Measure is Losing
Posted by on Tue, May 15 at 9:05 PM
Periodic charter review is winning by nearly 76 percent. The change in form of government proposal—this specific proposal—is losing by 75 percent. Coincidence?
I don’t think so. I think Portland is itching for a change in the way we do things—maybe not a radical overhaul, maybe not a weird proposal that puts the mayor on the council, but given the popularity of the periodic review, the message is clear. The city is changing, and perhaps our government should too. Or, as we said in our endorsement recommending a no vote on the form of government change, and a yes vote on the periodic review:
We’re policy wonks in the worst way, and we would have been thrilled to have anything but the stilted, dysfunctional conversation that only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population is currently having. But what we’ve gotten instead has been nothing worthy of building a new government on. For that reason, we urge you to vote no—but let’s keep talking.Like we said, vote no on overhauling the city’s government after so little debate—but vote yes on this proposal, which calls for a periodic review of the city’s charter. In other words, this is one way to keep talking about the city’s structure.
[11:16 pm; Edited to add] And it looks like I’m not the only one with this theory. Rick Seifert—a SW Portland neighborhood activist—has the same analysis on his Red Electric blog.
Together the votes make for a double mandate of sorts. The message: Get back to the drawing boards and give us an acceptable, efficient and representative form of government.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.
Comments
If you read the ballot title and explanation for 26-89, it's hard not to agree with it unless you know a little more about the Charter and what's in it now. I don't think the vote for 26-89 says Portlanders want to change their form of government to something else. It shows the voters wanted what was in the ballot title and explanation - nothing more, nothing less.
Amy, I think you will be less enthusiastic for endless (eight times now, and with 26-89 passing, no end in sight) debates about the Charter when you've been through a few more. You'll see how much time is wasted on discussing them, instead of spending it figuring out practical answers to more urgent problems.
I find it very sad that fewer than 3,000 people, in a city of 381,000+ registered voters, are currently making the difference between Measures 90 and 92 passing or failing. Allowing such important changes to be made with a turnout of less than 25% is horrible. And Measure 89 allows this to happen over and over and over again.
Still, Ruth Adkins won. Yay!
Voters didn't think 91 was the way to go - but they did think that we should change the way our government works and revisit the issue in 2 years.
Face it - we'll have a million new people here in the Metro area soon, and the way we do business now needs to change.
3 out of 4 isn't too bad though.
By the way - see you in 2 years.
Maybe the debate you said was lacking can actually happen if you're there to cover the next Charter review.
Scott and I were already discussing this tonight—he's looking forward to covering the commissioners choice of charter review committee members, to start.
You know - for this Charter commission - I don't think Randy ever suggested any member. Of the original 26, I am almost positive that all were appointed by Tom, Dan, Sam, and Erik.
So, guess he was against it before it even started.
Bitter much, K?
Actually, Kyle, I recommended Chris Smith.
There is a difference between me not nominating anyone and not having my nominee put on the charter review commission.
Voters didn't think 91 was the way to go - but they did think that we should change the way our government works and revisit the issue in 2 years.
Um, no. That voters chose periodic Charter review doesn't mean they chose to change the way our government works. Especially when you figure that most people pretty much know about periodic Charter review only what's in the voters pamphlet.
We don't actually know anything about why voters approved periodic Charter review.
But pretty clearly we know what Kyle and others are going to try to direct it to do.
Hey Kyle,
St. Paul ditched progressive commission governance more than 70 years ago, maybe they have some openings.
One thing periodic review ought to do is examine the archaic language in the actual charter. Do we really want the mayor to "control the public exhibition of deformed persons"?
If you could figure out that index finger in the nose issue you mentioned awhile ago, Dave, maybe they'd stop harassing you using that law. ;)
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).
Our Friends
- UrbanHonking
- Your Daily Awesome
- Portland Metroblogs
- Hype Machine
- Lelo in NoPo
- Furious Nads!
- Oregon Media Insiders
- Huffington Post
- Loaded Orygun
- Food Fight Grocery
- Jesus Christ's Blog
- Willamette Week
- BlueOregon
- Pampelmoose
- The Etchasketchist
Our Enemies
- Russian Amputee Brides
- God Hates Fags (Westboro Baptist Church)
- Portland Indy Media
- Oregon Republican Party
- Jack Bog's Blog
- The Stranger
- Men Who Look Like Kenny Rogers
- Any Dumbass Still Using MySpace
- Portland Monthly
- Life Decisions International
- Courtney Taylor-Taylor
- The Earthly Minions of Emperor Klaktu
All contents © 2006 Index Publishing • Privacy Policy • Contact Info • Production Guidelines
Hungry for change from 75% for periodic charter review? That sounds like the beer talking, not the voters. Here's what it sounds like to me, "Huh, whatever."