We just need to do away with the commission form of government. That’s it - Job One. The charter has gone to a vote twice since I’ve been a voter in Portland. Every time it gets larded up with other measures e.g. creation of districts and eliminating citywide voting for commissioners. What has happened every time is that there was something in the ballot measure for everyone to hate, so nothing changes. Can’t we all just agree that we need a day of reckoning on the commission form of government? A form of government by which people who mostly have no management experience whatsoever supposedly “run” multiple bureaus, many of which have the size and budget of mid-to-large size corporations? That would be a no-brainer, right? Well, this being Portland maybe not...but at least, voting for just one thing MIGHT actually garner the approval of voters, who I believe over the past several years have come to release that at the City of Portland, no one is running the store.
There was a time when I believed that "managers" should run the bureaus--but, in fact, that's what we have today. Think Chris Warner has done a great job at PBOT in paving streets and fixing potholes--as opposed to warfare on the auto--well, he's a "professional." If the charter passes, he'll have a job for life; no one quite knows how he might be fired under the new capon-mayor system.
In fact, currently no City Commissioner "runs" any of the many and varied bureaus. They are (supposedly) there to represent the pee-pul in keeping watch on the bureaus. That will be gone under the new system; instead, we'll have a mayor (yet another pol with "no management experience whatsoever") who will "run" the city.
So, instead of five "amateurs," we'll have one, supposedly "running" the whole shebang.
Oh yah; there'll be another unelected super-bureaucrat to "help him," whatever that means. Your guess is as good as mine. Bur, whoever it is, he/she/they/xe won't be answerable to the voters.
I agree. The term of art is “City Manager” but the job is really that of CEO. The elected Council then becomes a board of directors whose job is policy and there are (should be) no illusions that these elected council-aka-board members *run* anything. What we have now is the pretense of running the city. The people who really run things are the bureau heads and therein lies the problem. Their job description is to run their bureau and garner resources for bureau priorities. The council members then advocate/compete/horse-trade for resources for their assigned bureaus. This is how our city government is currently designed to work. (God help us)
I don’t believe our city councilors or bureau heads are bad or unintelligent. They are operating under a system that worked okay (kinda) at a certain scale at a certain time but has not for quite a while.
This brings me back to my original comment - can’t we just vote to get rid of the commission form of government??? You don’t like the connotation of “City Manager”? Fair enough, but let’s admit that the city is a large and complicated municipal corporation and it needs a CEO. Let’s just do that one thing for now and see how that goes before we add districting, a boatload more council members, a powerless who-in-their-right-mind-would-take-THAT-job mayor, and ranked choice voting to the mix. (God help us.) We can do that one thing - and it will be...better.
Sue: Again, a most thoughtful comment. But there's a dilemma in looking toward "bizness" for city government salvation. It's this: a business is not a democracy. The modern-day CEO is as close to an absolute tyrant as you will find this side of Beijing. He or she is only "elected" by a board of directors--and many CEOs are also head of that board. CEOs can be dumped--but that's a determination of the stock market, not voters.
CEOs who came into politics, in most cases, didn't turn out well--they had no experience in compromise, bargaining, cajoliing--they issued orders and people who didn't get with the profit-maximizing project are fired. Try that in a city run by AFSCME.
And, by the way: will this wonderful new CEO be a member of that august labor union?
More likely, he or she will be captured by it.
I fear "professionals" far more than I fear "amateurs." We need more voices in our local government, not fewer. Create 13 (or 21, who cares)districts with single councilors and this city will run in a different--and I believe--better way.
Jul 1, 2022·edited Jul 1, 2022Liked by Richard Cheverton, Pamela Fitzsimmons
If you want an example of a truly dysfunctional City Council, one need only look at places like San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles where there as many as 20+ city council members and the rivalries and fiefdoms make governing near impossible
The one big difference is that in all those cities there is a particularly strong mayor form of government.
We just need to do away with the commission form of government. That’s it - Job One. The charter has gone to a vote twice since I’ve been a voter in Portland. Every time it gets larded up with other measures e.g. creation of districts and eliminating citywide voting for commissioners. What has happened every time is that there was something in the ballot measure for everyone to hate, so nothing changes. Can’t we all just agree that we need a day of reckoning on the commission form of government? A form of government by which people who mostly have no management experience whatsoever supposedly “run” multiple bureaus, many of which have the size and budget of mid-to-large size corporations? That would be a no-brainer, right? Well, this being Portland maybe not...but at least, voting for just one thing MIGHT actually garner the approval of voters, who I believe over the past several years have come to release that at the City of Portland, no one is running the store.
There was a time when I believed that "managers" should run the bureaus--but, in fact, that's what we have today. Think Chris Warner has done a great job at PBOT in paving streets and fixing potholes--as opposed to warfare on the auto--well, he's a "professional." If the charter passes, he'll have a job for life; no one quite knows how he might be fired under the new capon-mayor system.
In fact, currently no City Commissioner "runs" any of the many and varied bureaus. They are (supposedly) there to represent the pee-pul in keeping watch on the bureaus. That will be gone under the new system; instead, we'll have a mayor (yet another pol with "no management experience whatsoever") who will "run" the city.
So, instead of five "amateurs," we'll have one, supposedly "running" the whole shebang.
Oh yah; there'll be another unelected super-bureaucrat to "help him," whatever that means. Your guess is as good as mine. Bur, whoever it is, he/she/they/xe won't be answerable to the voters.
Great system.
I agree. The term of art is “City Manager” but the job is really that of CEO. The elected Council then becomes a board of directors whose job is policy and there are (should be) no illusions that these elected council-aka-board members *run* anything. What we have now is the pretense of running the city. The people who really run things are the bureau heads and therein lies the problem. Their job description is to run their bureau and garner resources for bureau priorities. The council members then advocate/compete/horse-trade for resources for their assigned bureaus. This is how our city government is currently designed to work. (God help us)
I don’t believe our city councilors or bureau heads are bad or unintelligent. They are operating under a system that worked okay (kinda) at a certain scale at a certain time but has not for quite a while.
This brings me back to my original comment - can’t we just vote to get rid of the commission form of government??? You don’t like the connotation of “City Manager”? Fair enough, but let’s admit that the city is a large and complicated municipal corporation and it needs a CEO. Let’s just do that one thing for now and see how that goes before we add districting, a boatload more council members, a powerless who-in-their-right-mind-would-take-THAT-job mayor, and ranked choice voting to the mix. (God help us.) We can do that one thing - and it will be...better.
Sue: Again, a most thoughtful comment. But there's a dilemma in looking toward "bizness" for city government salvation. It's this: a business is not a democracy. The modern-day CEO is as close to an absolute tyrant as you will find this side of Beijing. He or she is only "elected" by a board of directors--and many CEOs are also head of that board. CEOs can be dumped--but that's a determination of the stock market, not voters.
CEOs who came into politics, in most cases, didn't turn out well--they had no experience in compromise, bargaining, cajoliing--they issued orders and people who didn't get with the profit-maximizing project are fired. Try that in a city run by AFSCME.
And, by the way: will this wonderful new CEO be a member of that august labor union?
More likely, he or she will be captured by it.
I fear "professionals" far more than I fear "amateurs." We need more voices in our local government, not fewer. Create 13 (or 21, who cares)districts with single councilors and this city will run in a different--and I believe--better way.
Excellent article. Thank you
If you want an example of a truly dysfunctional City Council, one need only look at places like San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles where there as many as 20+ city council members and the rivalries and fiefdoms make governing near impossible
The one big difference is that in all those cities there is a particularly strong mayor form of government.