When Portland voters approved a revision to Portland’s City Charter, they wanted a change from the antiquated commission style of government where city commissioners are both legislators and administrators of city bureaus. This outdated system of government created too may silos and dysfunction. In presenting a measure to the voters, the Charter Review Commission proposed an all-or-nothing package of reforms that included increasing the City Council to 12 members from four districts with a complicated ranked choice voting system; hiring a city manager to oversee bureaus; and electing citywide a figurehead-like mayor. All those proposals were tied together in one “yes” or “no” vote.
The proponents of this all-or-nothing package are now claiming this is the will of the voters (“We must defend democracy in Portland,” July 26).
It is my understanding that the will of the voters, reflected in testimony to the Charter Review Commission and in surveys, was to vote on the individual components of charter change separately, but the majority on the commission refused. It also seems as if the complicated ranked choice voting system is designed to rig an election by favoring some candidates over others as opposed to a one-person, one-vote type of system. Furthermore, the taxpayer costs for the recommended charter changes were grossly underestimated. If the Charter Review commissioners genuinely believe in the will of the voters, then providing for a bona fide vote of the people to tweak the new charter is defending democracy in Portland.
Terry Parker, Portland
To read more letters to the editor, go to oregonlive.com/opinion.