Hiding Behind The Fear Of ‘Personalities’
There’s been some movement when discussing Charter reform to not make it a debate over personalities. But that runs the risk of overcompensating to the point of rendering the debate useless, and it’s a movement which Erik Sten tried to counter during this afternoon’s Council hearing.
(First, a quick digression. I’m posting a lot about Charter revision lately, and that’s primarily because it’s the one public policy issue which I regret leaving behind when I shuttered Portland Communique. Now that it’s coming to a head, I’m going to be sticking my nose into it.)
A sticking point for some during today’s hearing was how to discuss the merits of the curiously-strong mayor system being proposed by the Charter Review Commission without examining specific instances of policy or decision under the current commission form which would have been better off under the proposed system. The argument being that voters need real-world examples, not merely ethereal philosophical argument.
From the standpoint of the Commission’s chair (it seemed from his testimony today), examining specifics brings with it the danger of insulting someone who might still be sitting on the Council.
But, fortunately, Sten would have none of that and quickly introduced an issue directly tied to himself as a point for the debate: Yes, the Water Bureau billing system debacle.
In essence, Sten wanted to know, how would that situation have been better handled under the Commission’s proposed system?
Unfortunately, the response of the Commission’s chair doesn’t stand up under even the most cursory scrutiny: If the Chief Administrative officer (under the curiously-strong mayor system) had been in charge during the billing system debacle, the Council could have held him accountable.
Here’s where we delve into the wonkishness. But its in the so-called wonkishness that we find all the most important Charter revision issues.
Under the curiously-strong mayor system proposed by the Commission, while the CAO is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Council, only the mayor can fire him or her. So how, exactly, would the Council be able to impose any accountability on the CAO whatsoever? Merely by summoning him to come before a Council hearing?
So does the Commission chair not understand the system his own Commission is proposing?
This disparity between wanting to avoid personality conflict (on the one hand) and the need for real-world examples — combined with the Commission chair’s apparent inability to answer a straightforward question in that context without contradicting his Commission’s own proposals — nicely illustrates one reason why the Commission’s recommendations need to be the starting point towards a Charter proposal (if any) and not merely the prompting for an up-or-down vote by the electorate.