Discuss charter change proposal HERE
After Thursday's post I sent some 20 neighborhood activists (neighboristas?) an e-mail inviting their views on whether the proposed charter revision would help neighborhoods.
That has prompted a lively, fascinating debate. Unfortunately none of the comments has made it onto this site. So I'm writing the respondents again to encourage them to comment here. That way everyone can follow the thread.
Feel free to join in. Here's most of what I wrote:
Last night I wrote a Red Electric entry in which I said the proposed charter revision has bungled an opportunity to give neighborhoods a much-needed seat at the table of
city government.
If I vote for the charter revision, it won't be with the hope that it will help us in Hillsdale. It could even make matters worse.
I'm wondering what you are thinking.
Rick
That has prompted a lively, fascinating debate. Unfortunately none of the comments has made it onto this site. So I'm writing the respondents again to encourage them to comment here. That way everyone can follow the thread.
Feel free to join in. Here's most of what I wrote:
Last night I wrote a Red Electric entry in which I said the proposed charter revision has bungled an opportunity to give neighborhoods a much-needed seat at the table of
city government.
If I vote for the charter revision, it won't be with the hope that it will help us in Hillsdale. It could even make matters worse.
I'm wondering what you are thinking.
Rick
Labels: Charter Revision, Hillsdale
posted by Rick Seifert at
11:59 AM
3 Comments:
Over the last 20 years my economic development work in Oregon has involved
close interaction with many municipal governments in the Portland area
(Gresham, Hillsboro, Forest Grove, St. Helens among others) and across
Oregon. My work with these governments usually involves problem solving for
businesses and for the communities themselves - and these solutions usually
involve many aspects of government, as well as collaboration between public
and private interests.
It has been my experience that those cities that use a coordinated form of
government that is centrally managed by a city manager have been
consistently more efficient - especially when it comes to solving problems
that cross departmental boundaries, such as land use issues versus
transportation issues - a nexus most familiar to our neighborhoods.
In communities where commissioners are relieved of the burden of running
vast agencies they have more time to circulate among the constituency and
consider some of the longer term trends that affect the quality of the
community. Clackamas Commissioner Martha Shrader, for instance, spends much
time in the field working with her constituency considering how to make
Clackamas County a better place for all - this is time the Portland
commissioners have to spend on managing their large departments. In fact,
running these large departments with multi-million budgets is a very
challenging task. In the private sector no one would ever consider putting a
novice with no prior experience in charge of an agency with hundreds of
employees, a multi-million dollar budget and responsibility for the city's
life critical systems - but that's what Portland does. The current form of
government assumes that simply because an individual can win a popular
election this also makes them well qualified to run such a large
organization. I think we can all recall recent costly debacles in the Water
Bureau and involving the Tram that might put that notion in doubt.
So which form of government serves the neighborhoods better? This is the
wrong question. We should be considering what serves the best interests of
our entire community, not just the interests of specific neighborhoods. We
should not be trying to rearrange our political structure with the intent of
tilting the political discourse in favor of one group over the other. What
we need is a balance between vision and accomodation for the existing needs,
and above all we need a system that can really deliver the results on time,
and on budget.
Portland is regarded with awe by many other municipalities across the
country and the world, because we have managed to make some very strategic
decisions along the way that have helped us anticipate the future in a way
that few other communities have. But many of our boldest moves have required
strong political leadership, often in the face of resistance from entrenched
special interests. If we are to continue to make such pioneering moves we
have to empower our elected leadership to lead, and leave the management of
the agencies to managers. Let's free our Commissioners from the petty
interdepartmental competition that exists today and turn them into the
"Board of Directors" of our community. Let them set our city's direction
based on what they hear from the community as a whole, and then give them
the power to enable or disable the wheels of public government in their role
as stewards of that public will.
On March 22nd, at 7 PM (at Ainsworth School on SW Vista) SWHRL will host
Mayor Tom Potter at our neighborhood meeting to discuss precisely these
questions, and I would encourage all who are interested in this issue,
regardless of your views, to attend and participate in what will likely be a
lively discussion.
Jim Thayer, President SWHRL
On March 22nd, at 7 PM ... SWHRL will host Mayor Tom Potter at our neighborhood meeting to discuss precisely these questions...
Just the mayor, or does the other side get a special captive audience with SWHRL as well?
The current form of
government assumes that simply because an individual can win a popular
election this also makes them well qualified to run such a large
organization. I think we can all recall recent costly debacles in the Water
Bureau and involving the Tram that might put that notion in doubt.
And putting all of those decisions into the hands of a single mayor will somehow guarante that said single person is qualified to run ALL the bureaus?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home