Posted by: Dan Handelman, Portland Copwatch - June 13, 2011 02:38 PM

Greetings to the Charter Commission
At your last meeting, I presented to you a document from Portland Copwatch outlining both the desirability and the history of adding the Independent Police Review Division, the Ombudsman's office and the Human Rights Commission to the City Charter.
Part of our recommendation has included the true independence of both the IPR and the HRC. Charter Commission members asked how the staff people would be hired and how these entities would report to all of City Council rather than just one Commissioner (as the current Charter would require).
Here are some links to information about the Portland Development Commission (PDC) which has such a structure.
The PDC recently hired a new Executive Director:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/02/patrick_quinton_to_be_named_po.html
They were established by City Charter and their Commissioners are nominated by the Mayor but approved by the entire Council:
http://www.pdc.us/about_pdc/faqs.asp
You can read more in the charter to give you further ideas on how to apply this to the IPR and HRC; the Ombudsman's office differs slightly in that there is no citizen body to nominate the Ombudsman.
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&c=28221
As I mentioned with the previous proposal about the Ombudsman put forward by Auditor Blackmer in 2008, we do not necessarily suggest you adopt this in total; the original PDC charter allowed them their own legal counsel, but sometime in the last few years Commissioner Leonard changed the rules so they would go through the City Attorney's office.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-8529-print.html
We still feel strongly that the main reason to allow these entities a place in the charter is the conflict of interest between bodies which advise the City when its policies or employees are violating people's rights and the City Attorney's goal to protect the City from lawsuits.
Thank you
dan handelman
portland copwatch
503-236-3065

Posted by: Jorden Leonard - August 17, 2011 12:11 PM

Written testimony for Ranked Choice Instant Runoff Voting

-Submitted by the Portland Green Party's Ranked Choice Instant Runoff Voting Campaign


We seek to have ranked choice instant runoff voting added to the City of Portland's charter.

Ranked choice voting is when voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their ballots are counted as one vote for their first choice candidate. If a candidate secures a majority of votes cast, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. A new round of counting takes place, with each ballot counted as one vote for the advancing candidate who is ranked highest on that ballot. This process continues until the winning candidate receives a majority of the vote against the remaining candidates.

We have for the last year gathered small donations from nearing two thousand people in the Portland area for the campaign to implement Ranked Choice Instant Runoff Voting. We have coalesced with a number of groups, including the Alliance for Democracy that will stand with us. Our campaign is eager for it to be on the ballot. It will be an item we will make sure voters are fully informed on so they can make an educated choice in a high turn out election as to how democratic they want their local elections to be.

This opportunity to follow in the footsteps of cities like San Francisco exists because the people of Oregon back in 1908, by popular initiative, proposed and adopted it. A hundred and three years ago we wanted the option of ranked choice voting. This isn't a new idea, and finally with the election of Kate Brown, a reform-minded Secretary of State, we can take advantage of the foresight of our forebears.

Ranked choice voting is a better version of democracy then what we now use:
It has a proven track record of increasing the chances for minorities and women to be elected, as we want our leaders to more closely match who they lead.
It makes elections cheaper. Ranked choice voting in San Francisco allows them to skip the cost of two elections for close primary races. The money saved would be enough to cover the costs of implementation and education, and would pair well with public financing of elections. Something that was narrowly defeated but we believe would pass if paid for with savings from ranked voting.
When ranked choice voting is implemented, negative campaigning is reduced. Candidates seek out second and third choices instead of going on the attack, to ensure they win election.
The spoiler effect is eliminated, allowing people to vote for candidates in the rank ordering they actually prefer without the cost of a runoff election.
One election means higher voter turnout. This isn't just more democratic it is also a good way to increase the efficiency of the election system as ballots and pamphlets are printed for everybody but mostly go unused in the current system. Dollars per voter thus additionally decrease in cost beyond the elimination of separate rounds.
A recent poll showed approval of Ranked Voting among a majority of Portlanders. This is what Portlanders want. Portland is a natural fit for this simple reform that will improve our democracy
and make our elections more efficient. We are delighted to ask that you recommend
to the City Council that ranked choice voting be placed on the ballot.

Thank you all for your time.

Jorden Leonard
Executive Director
Portland Green Party
503 839 0632

Posted by: Jorden Leonard - August 23, 2011 03:17 AM

(updated) Written testimony for Ranked Choice Instant Runoff Voting

-Submitted by the Portland Green Party's Ranked Choice Instant Runoff Voting Campaign


We seek to have ranked choice instant runoff voting added to the City of Portland's charter.


Ranked choice voting is when voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their ballots are counted as one vote for their first choice candidate. If a candidate secures a majority of votes cast, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. A new round of counting takes place, with each ballot counted as one vote for the advancing candidate who is ranked highest on that ballot. This process continues until the winning candidate receives a majority of the vote against the remaining candidates.


We have for the last year gathered small donations from nearing two thousand people in the Portland area for the campaign to implement Ranked Choice Instant Runoff Voting. We have coalesced with a number of groups, including the Alliance for Democracy that will stand with us. Our campaign is eager for it to be on the ballot. It will be an item we will make sure voters are fully informed on so they can make an educated choice in a high turn out election as to how democratic they want their local elections to be.


This opportunity to follow in the footsteps of cities like San Francisco exists because the people of Oregon back in 1908, by popular initiative, proposed and adopted it. A hundred and three years ago we wanted the option of ranked choice voting. This isn't a new idea, and finally with the election of Kate Brown, a reform-minded Secretary of State, we can take advantage of the foresight of our forebears.


Ranked choice voting is a better version of democracy than what we now use:


   Majority Rule! Ranked choice voting insures that candidates actually have a majority in the high turnout general election, thus avoiding the false majority "winners" in a primary election which often has a low turn out of around thirty percent.


   It has a proven track record of increasing the chances for minorities and women to be elected, as we want our leaders to more closely match who they lead.


   It makes elections cheaper. Ranked choice voting in San Francisco allows them to skip the cost of two elections for close primary races. The money saved would be enough to cover the costs of implementation and education, and would pair well with public financing of elections. That was narrowly defeated, but we believe it would pass if paid for with savings from ranked voting.


   When ranked choice voting is implemented, negative campaigning is reduced. Candidates seek to be second and third choices not just first and so have to focus on promoting themselves more than going on the attack to ensure they win the election.


   The spoiler effect is eliminated, allowing people to vote for candidates in the rank ordering they actually prefer without the cost of a runoff election.


   Higher voter turnout isn't just more democratic it is also a good way to increase the efficiency of the election system as ballots and pamphlets are printed for everybody but mostly go unused in the current system. Dollars per voter thus additionally decrease in cost beyond the elimination of separate rounds.


A recent poll showed approval of Ranked Voting among a majority of Portlanders. This is what Portlanders want. Portland is a natural fit for this simple reform that will improve our democracy and make our elections more efficient. We are delighted to ask that you recommend to the City Council that ranked choice voting be placed on the ballot.


Thank you all for your time.

Posted by: Kelley Beamer - August 23, 2011 05:28 PM

Dear Charter Commission:

My name is Kelley Beamer and am commenting on behalf of Cascadia Green Building Council.

As you review the City Charter for Portland, I ask that you consider the removal of Section 1-108 that prohibits mandatory weatherization for existing buildings unless it is passed by a public vote.  

Portland has made a strong commitment to support sustainable development. The City's green building program has earned Portland recognition as a national leader in promoting green building and green infrastructure. As we face the task of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we must look at opportunities in in our existing building stock to help buildings operate and perform more efficiently.  The language in Section 1-108 is inconsistent with direction of the City and the goals of the green building community in Portland.  

On behalf of Cascadia, I ask that you remove Section 1-108 in the revised version of the City Charter.  

Sincerely,
Kelley Beamer
Advocacy and Outreach Manager
Cascadia Green Building Council

Posted by: David Cohan - August 25, 2011 08:46 AM

Commission Members,
Article 1 of the city charter establishes, in an appropriately broad manner, the powers, rights and responsibilities of the City of Portland. Within that context, Section 1-108 is an anomaly; it is the only section which deals with a single, very specific topic and it cites specific dates which are no longer relevant. I urge you to remove it to improve the integrity of the Charter.
Thank you,
David

Posted by: Clark Brockman - August 25, 2011 11:19 AM

Charter Commission Members -

Section 1-108 of the Charter (Dating from Nov., 1980), prohibits mandatory weatherization of buildings built within the City before Sept., 1979, without a vote of the people.  This is an out-of-date provision that stands out in its unique specificity regarding activities that are now viewed in a very different and evolving context, and does not appear consistent with the remainder of the Charter and the direction it sets for the City.

I encourage you to remove this provision from the Charter as part of your current effort.

With respect,

Clark Brockman
Associate Principal
Director of Sustainability Resources
SERA Architects
Portland, Oregon

Posted by: Terry Miller - August 30, 2011 08:59 AM

Section 1-108 Mandatory Weatherization for Existing Buildings Requires Vote of the People directly conflicts with the priorities expressed in the City's policies and code/planning framework. I urge the Council to remove this relic section and to identify a viable, leveraged means to expedite efficiency upgrades in the existing housing stock. Efficiency is the cheapest form of energy, creates local jobs and supports occupant comfort while reducing the cost of living. Gee, tough decision.

Posted by: Roger Hardesty - September 30, 2011 06:05 PM

At issue is the effectiveness of the Independent Police Review Board.

Among the Board's powers and duties is a fundamental mandate to conduct investigations 'in conjunction with or independent of' Portland's Police Bureau. As presently consituted, the Board is incapable of achieving sufficient independence to perform this duty: the Board has never seen fit to hire outside legal counsel: it relies on the City Attorney for legal advice and services.

"The IPRB Director shall not have access to legally privileged documents held by the City Attorney or Attorney-Client communications held by the City Attorney clients."

Among those clients are the Portland Police Bureau: it is part of the City Attorney's mandate to represent the Bureau when litigation (for misconduct)is brought against it. For the City Attorney to be entirely forthcoming in helping the Board unearth wrongdoing would bring his office into conflict with its goal of reducing the city's exposure to economic damages.

What are the policy implications of granting the IPRB more functional independence? I would ask the Commission to investigate and report on this.

I know that the current configuration is not achieving protection from economic harm. Reports from Portland's Office of Risk Management, the Office of Management and Finance, the City Auditor's Office and various news agencies indicate that the top 25 settlements in lawsuits over police misconduct now exceed $6,800,000.

Portland is under a national spotlight as the U.S. Department of Justice investigates violations of American's civil rights (that neither IPRB or the Human Rights Commission had previously been able to identify or ameliorate). It is time for you to help Portland's citizenry push for the institutional changes required to bring Bureau practices within the bounds of our State and Federal Consitutions. Charter Commission efforts, to provide the Board with access to effective legal counsel - free from conflict with other parts of the city's mission - can make the IPRB a robust corrective mechanism. Bureau employees will do less harm and city resources will not be spent giving redress to victims of Police Bureau mistakes.

Posted by: Jorden Leonard - October 17, 2011 10:46 PM

At last Public Forum two new issues were brought up and there was a request that something be posted about them here.

The first is Public Financing of Elections
The second is challenging Corporate Personhood

We had public financing of elections, it is how Amanda Fritz got elected. It lost in this last election by a little over a thousand votes.  It is a commonly held belief that the loss was due to bad name in ballot, big errors in campaign, and bad year for the vote, but that most voters are actually in favor of this or something that accomplishes the same thing.  Having this in the charter would protect it from the whim to crush it.

Why are corporations being given the rights of people.  Let's clarify that they aren't people in our charter.  It is apparently needed.

Posted by: Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D - November 09, 2011 03:20 PM

Advocate a change in the Portland City Charter that bans in any rule/regulation/ordinance the interpretation/definition of "persons" as corporate or small-business entities. "Person(s)" must be interpreted/defined as a "natural person(s)."  Pundit/U.S. Constitutional expert Thom Hartmann points out a half-dozen cities/towns that have begun to do this to eventually terminate the Citizens United ruling. It must start at the local level. SEE http://www.truth-out.org/print/8723.

Posted by: Joe Walsh - November 28, 2011 10:17 AM

During the eviction of citizens of Portland from the Occupy sites, horses were used to move people out of the way.  We should retire the police horses on the grounds that we will hurt a citizen practicing 1st Amendment rights or hurt one of the horses. The police like to use horses for control because it works, the fact that it puts people at risk does not seem to enter the question of safety.  Our city streets are wet the majority of the time which makes it unsafe for both the horses and our people who may be trapped under one of the wonderful animals.  

The use of teargas and/or pepper-spray should also be barred or restrictions on its use.  The police in many cities have shown they do not understand the proper use of chemicals or worse yet don't care.

Joe Walsh-Lone Vet
Individuals For Justice

Posted by: Teresa Roberts - February 25, 2012 07:40 PM

I am 58 years old and would like to be able to protest. Having watched footage and seen photos, I greatly fear police brutality and pepper spray, especially pepper spray that is ten times as powerful than most citizens realize, with plans for increasing another 5% in near future. I feel safer watching protests online, especially those held at night. But I want to stand up and be counted, and my right to do so infringed upon.

I feel that the gross misuse of taxpayers dollars to vilify and harrass a targeted group of protestors is an unreasonable use of force against legally protesting private citizens. The MLK day march put on by Sisters of the Road was not so harrassed, although there was heavy presence of homeless individuals -- an exuse often given for harrassing Occupy.  I also attended a rally for Tibet where zero police presence was seen outside the usual. The disparity of response if clearly prejudicial. I wish to attend Occupy events without trepidation of unjust reprisal.

I want some assurance that there are checks and balances and that the current police chief is not colluding with former police chief (now commissioner) towards militarization of our force when thousands of Portlanders march in the street.

I want someone to explain to me how incentive for police to keep fit turned into premium pay for a biometric screening.

Finally, I want someone to explain to me how it is that Portland police continue to exhibit unreasonable force against targeted individuals while under ongoing Federal investigation. Because the message it sends to citizens is that
this is a police department out of control, self-policing, and without fear of reprisal.  

As citizens, we need to put on the brakes before they bankrupt us to the point we have no bus services but a new sales tax to pay for Mike Reese's indiscriminate use of force.  The Portland budget has grown to resemble the of the militarized mechanism of war that we call DC. I do not wish my taxes to pay for more weapons and easy overtime pay with one riot cop per protestor. We will be hard pressed to finance the court cases of those whose rights they've already violated.

Thank you for your time and attention.
Thank you for your honorable service.
"If not now, when?  If not us, who?"

Don't make us wait another 7-10 years for justice.