Civic duty (Jack Bog's Blog)

It's time for us to get on with the voting in the "special election" that closes on Tuesday the 15th (a week from tomorrow). Before we get any more coffee stains on our ballots, it's time to do our thing with the no. 2 pencil. We'll be busy, since under the Oregon vote-by-mail system we've got to fill out ballots for friends, deceased relatives, and people who used to live in our house, as well as for ourselves. (Our cat Ralphie is insisting on doing his own; his younger brother, Billy, is not old enough to vote.)

The City of Portland charter changes are the big issues this time around. We're voting yes on the PDC budget change -- Measure 26-92 -- because the more sunlight thrown on that pork barrel, the better. It's not that I think that people like Opie and Fireman Randy are going to make a difference when it comes to what the "urban renewal" agency does, but rather that the additional scrutiny mandated by this measure may occasionally alert the public to some new scam in the making -- in time to put a stop to it.

As for the other three city measures, they're all pretty crummy ideas, and we're voting no. It's not that the current system of city government has all that much to be said in its defense. If, for example, somebody came to us with term limits and election by district for the City Council, we'd be all for it. But neither of those ideas are before us, and the Powers That Be would probably kill them if they were.

What we are passing on this time is not a pretty picture. More power to people like Vera Katz? More backroom hiring and firing of city workers? And more rounds of charter change nonsense every few years, like clockwork? No thanks.

In the school board election, we're going with Adkins and Wynde. The latter is not a slam-dunk, but like the Double Dub, we think he's done an acceptable job and will balance off an Adkins. On the Multnomah educational service district, we'd like to vote to abolish it, but since that option isn't offered, we're going with Okamura and Gratton.

Comments (6)

Y'all can't have districting with the commission form of government. If you want districting, the first step is to vote YES on 26-91 or to work to change to some other form.

Posted by Karin | May 7, 2007 11:59 AM

That's fair to say, I think. The idea of being elected to represent a particular district's interests and then also being given control over City bureaus doesn't work, barring some sort peculiar structural reform to prevent such an official from just funnelling, say, as much transportation money as they can get away with into their own district.

Posted by b!X | May 7, 2007 12:57 PM

More backroom hiring and firing of city workers?

Really? I thought it was like 25-30 people out of the City workforce. And it doesn't seem like these would be people on the frontlines - but managers.

Reading the explanatory statement and the "report" someone left in the comments it also looks like the City Council would still have to make that decision any way and vote to make those folks able to be fired.

Posted by LMNOP | May 7, 2007 1:25 PM

If you want districting, the first step is to vote YES on 26-91 or to work to change to some other form.

I understand that. I'm still not going for this year's proposal.

Posted by Jack Bog | May 7, 2007 3:35 PM

And it doesn't seem like these would be people on the frontlines - but managers.

Someone else has pointed out that this doesn't affect top managers -- only mid-level managers, perhaps? Shows you how well this measure has been explained and sold to the public.

The more public process at City Hall, the better, as far as I am concerned.

Posted by Jack Bog | May 7, 2007 3:37 PM

The proponents say it would only be 25-30 people, but the actual language gives Council much broader authority than that. Probably in the range of 75-100 if they really wanted to use it.

Bureau directors are already at-will political appointees. This would expand that to deputy directors and beyond. The question is whether you think the Mayor and Council should be able to fill all of these positions with "their people", or if political appointments should be limited only to the director.

Personally, I think it should be easier to fire top managers for cause (insubordination, dereliction of duty, whatever), but this measure allows the Mayor and Council to fire people without cause. I don't think it would be good for the City.

Posted by miles | May 7, 2007 4:47 PM

About

Search

Clippings

Archives

Links

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, May 7, 2007

Civic duty

Comments (6)

Sponsors

In Vino Veritas

The Occasional Book

Road Work