Yes on 26-91: the campaign without an argument.
Kari Chisholm
What's the Portland charter reform measure 26-91? Here's what the ballot title says:
AMENDS CHARTER: CHANGES FORM OF CITY GOVERNMENT.QUESTION: Shall executive authority be transferred from Commissioners to the Mayor, and Council exercise legislative and quasi-judicial duties?
There are many, many reasonable arguments for changing our form of government from the commission form to a mayor/council/manager form. I've spent many nights over many pitchers of beer debating exactly this question. (Yeah, I'm a fun date.)
But strangely enough, the proponents have failed to make a single one of those arguments in their first (and, judging from my mailbox, only) mailer supporting 26-91.
Here's what they did say:
Yup, that's it. (Jack Bog has scans of the whole mailer, but you won't find another word about 26-91.)
They're actually claiming that 26-91 is about computer systems.
Computer systems?!
We're supposed to change our city's constitutional document because they've got too many computer systems? This is a change to our form of government; it could last a century. (Our current form of government has.)
Seriously.
If the proponents can't find an argument for this alternative form of government - an argument that makes sense in a 20-years-from-now world (long after this mayor, and these commissioners, and these agency heads are gone)... well, they're not getting my vote.
I'm waiting to hear a real argument for this charter reform. My unmarked ballot awaits.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:12 p.m.
May 6, '07
That is way too funny. I guess they don't care that they are giving people ammunition to use in upcoming elections and such for examples of waste?
I mean, if they're wasting that much per year, shouldn't those pushing for the ballot measure have been at council meetings demanding something be done about this waste?
And it's not as if this is going to change city regulations -- it'll just change it so that one guy is ultimately responsible for it. And it becomes the staff who have an increasing amount of power in how the city is run, as opposed to those who are elected by the people.
But of course it all sounds good to the uninformed voter.
12:25 p.m.
May 6, '07
Oddly, I'm right in the middle of finishing up my post about this measure.
4:17 p.m.
May 6, '07
Seriously, it's like arguing that we should change the federal government to a parliamentary system -- because we're concerned about, oh, say, federal student aid.
5:22 p.m.
May 6, '07
They got a little warmer in their second mailing:
http://bojack.org/2007/05/more_charter_porn_1.html.
5:39 p.m.
May 6, '07
The real problem, of course, is Bush's involvement.
May 6, '07
Not only are there no good arguments for the change, but also I haven't heard the proponents name a city that uses the proposed form of government successfully. Bob Ball suggested Phoenix at the City Club debate, but Phoenix's Mayor has less power than our current structure. We're being asked to change "because we're the last city using the commission form", but it seems the proposed form isn't widely used, either.
If you agree that the current campaign has been woefully lacking in community debate on real issues, please vote No on 26-89. If we've learned anything from this process, surely it's that putting future Charter changes on the May ballot (as 26-89 would allow) won't promote adequate review and community understanding, either.
10:07 p.m.
May 6, '07
Not only are there no good arguments for the change, but also I haven't heard the proponents name a city that uses the proposed form of government successfully.
Amanda, I think there are plenty of good arguments -- but if the proponents won't even make them, well, we don't have much of an argument at all!
I find it completely baffling that every time someone says "strong mayor" the proponents scream "No! No! It's a mayor/council form!"... when it's clear as day that this measure will make for a stronger mayor (maybe not something technically known as "strong mayor" but surely the whole point is that 26-91 makes the mayor stronger). Why they're running away from "stronger mayor" when we've got a tremendously popular mayor, well, I don't know.
May 6, '07
I feel like a cat owner being asked to choose what kind of kitty litter I want: Do I want to try the clumping kind or am I happy with the perfumed stuff? Meanwhile, the cat's gonna squat where it's always squatted -- outside the box if it can. Reform will come when all the bureaus are under the mayor, except one. Then council members can take turns running the police dept.
May 7, '07
If we want a stronger mayor, we should vote for one. The new system will only hide the weaknesses of whomever is in office. Potter gave too much away when he first stepped in to office, and now he's trying to wrangle it back, but at the expense of the whole system.
2:06 p.m.
May 7, '07
There are good arguments for it Kari?
I haven't heard any. I have heard plenty of red herrings about waste, access, accountability and every other strawman you can imagine, but have yet to hear a solid legitimate argument for it.
<h2>In fact, after hearing the arguments, it has made me think it is important that we NOT change the system we have because the problems it claims to "solve" would be only amplified.</h2>