I wholeheartedly support the effort to revamp Portland’s commission structure with a more directly representative City Council and more professional bureau management. However, one proposal seems poorly considered.
The Portland Charter Commission proposes to divide the city into four districts, with each district having three representatives. Those four districts will each need to be pretty large, and so will contain within them a wide range of interests. Which of the three elected officials in any district will represent a particular interest? It’s the same dilemma as haunts the current City Council; the votes of individuals don’t really translate into “representation.” Under this proposal, if you’re represented by three councilors, you aren’t really represented by any of them.
Moreover, on any city-wide issue – the budget, say – would all three representatives be expected to reach agreement on behalf of the district, or would they each be free to vote as they saw fit? How should that conflict be resolved? Isn’t this a recipe for squabbling and factionalism within each district?
Why not 12 districts instead? (Or six or eight?) That way, everyone who votes knows exactly who is representing their interests, and the elected official understands the needs and concerns of the people who elected them.
I’m concerned that the proposed system will not promote effective decision-making and cooperation, either within or between districts. Instead, I think there’s a good chance that it will promote factionalism and accusations of “our group always gets left out.” And while avoiding factionalism may be impossible, we should also be striving to avoid giving it fertile ground to grow.
Stephen Brooks, Portland
