Well, not exactly.

I wrote about this in my magazine column six months ago.

In 1988 with Bud Clark as mayor, the council passed a non-binding resolution to allocate 28% of the ULF to transportation. The key here is "non-binding". They started siphoning the money off almost immediately. During Vera's first year, it was slashed in half. During her second, it was eliminated.

In response to my column, Sam Adams said that we could blame measure 5. He claimed that Vera had to take the ULF allocation to fund police and fire because of the revenue declines resulting from measure 5. That's a point for debate.

The bottom line is that if the ULF allocation had been adhered to there would be no transportation maintenance backlog now.

Dave,

If the City Council violates a "binding" policy vs "non-binding" is there any consequence to that?

Swimmer:

After watching these guys for five years now it looks to me like they can pretty much do as they please. If the ordinance had been binding, they could have simply voted to get rid of it. The only things they can't change without voter approval are things in the city charter.

Dave,

If this were a "binding" policy and they did not vote to change it prior to violating it, what would the consequence be and what authority would hold them accountable. In other words how can we hold these guys accountable if and when we get binding policies passed.

This is my main complaint about the water tax to pay for road repairs. It will start out the first year or so being used for roads. Then it will be siphoned off to pay for pet projects and 10 years from now people will forget and he'll ask for another tax.

THis is exactly what happened with Bud's franchise fee deal in the late 80's. The local politicos know hwo to play voters here and Adams will have 20 years of doing this to help.

Should we have any doubt the "Safe, Sound and Green Streets" water tax will be diverted to Tram and Streetcar maintenance 5 years from now?

Swimmer:

That's a great question. I don't know the answer. I suppose it would fall to the city auditor.

Dave, like you have commented on the ULF in the past year, I have also commented on this blog about the same and added in the $138 Million dollars of Oregon's gas tax STIP dollars that have been siphoned off by Sam for Portland bike, pedestrian, mass transit incentive programs. The $138M is just for 07.

These questions have even been posted on Sam's blog, but no answers. I don't know why the media can't ask the questions. ODOT has it on their website with all the identified projects that are not really "road projects".

Dave-

I found these two references on the Auditor's Website

It seems to state that binding is "binding force of law" I tried to look in the City Code for the rule in City Charter that talks about consequences to encourage accountability but couldn't find it.

Council Actions:
The Council has several ways of acting on an agenda item:
Ordinances:
Ordinances are formal documents which carry the binding force of law and are passed by the Council in accordance with rules set forth in the City Charter.
WHAT IS THE PPD?

The Portland Policy Documents (PPD) began as a joint initiative of the Mayor's Office & Auditor's Office to capture all City policies and administrative rules in one central location. Ordinance No. 175959 , passed in October 2001, created the PPD and directed the Auditor to gather all City policies and rules and publish them on the Internet.

________________________________________
WHAT TYPES OF DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PPD?
• Binding City Policies. Adopted by City Council ordinance or resolution, these policies have a binding effect or serve as mandatory approval criteria for future decision making. (Example: Sister City Criteria )
• Non-Binding City Policies. Adopted by City Council ordinance or resolution, these policies express the Council's opinion but do not have a binding effect or serve as mandatory approval criteria for future decision making. (Example: Tacoma Main Street Plan )
• Administrative Rules Adopted by City Council. Adopted by City Council Ordinance or Resolution, these rules are binding requirements, regulations, or procedures which affect citizens or all City employees. (Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)/Affirmative Action)
• Administrative Rules Adopted by Bureaus Pursuant to Rule Making Authority. Adopted by the Bureau pursuant to authority expressly delegated by City Council, these are binding requirements, regulations, or procedures which affect citizens or all City employees. (Example: Unclaimed and Surplus Property, Transfer or Donation of )

If this were a "binding" policy and they did not vote to change it prior to violating it, what would the consequence be and what authority would hold them accountable.

If Council violates City Code, their actions can be legally challenged. I know in some cases those challenges start before a city code hearings officer, then move to district court on appeal. But I'm not sure if that applies to everything or just specific parts of the code.

In general, though, Council passes local laws by majority vote so a majority vote can also repeal those laws. As noted above, the Charter is the only truly binding policy.

Praise be that this subject is now getting some serious attention and analysis. The diversion of funds, presumably earmarked for transportation, has been below the radar, but it looks like observers far better informed than I are now making noise. Penny-pincher Fritz when she arrives ought to make waves, regardless of the likely enmity of our new Hizzoner.

Thanks Miles-

I went and read the reference and it appears broad enough in definition, though it seems aimed at Building and Zoning Code enforcement. Where would one go to find records of non Building and Zoning type Hearings on Code. Do you know of any of the different type of Code challenged.