November 26, 2001
AGENDA
METRO’S TRANSITION ADVISORY TASK FORCE
Council Annex, Metro Regional Center—3rd Floor
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
1. Call to order--Jeff Condit.
2. Self-introductions—all.
3. Welcome and explanation of Task Force Charter--David Bragdon and Mike Burton.
5. Discussion and adoption of workplan and schedule—Jeff Condit.
6. Adjourn.
November 26, 2001
WORKPLAN
METRO’S TRANSITION ADVISORY TASK FORCE
1. First meeting (11/26/01).
a. Explanation of Task Force Charter.
b. Adoption of workplan and schedule.
2. Second meeting (TBA).
a. History of Metro governance.
b. History of the Charter Amendment.
c. Current Metro structure.
d. Local governance models.
3. Third meeting (TBA).
a. Colloquy with Metro elected officials
4. Fourth meeting (TBA).
a. Report and discussion of Metro staff input.
5. Fifth meeting (TBA).
a. Task Force deliberations on recommendations.
6. Sixth meeting if needed (TBA).
a. Task Force deliberations and recommendations.
7. Presentation of report (TBA)
Charter
Metro Transition Advisory Task Force
September 25, 2001
Background. The Presiding Officer and the Executive Officer, in consultation with the Metro Council, have appointed a Transition Advisory Task Force to advise them on the implementation of ballot measure 26-10.
Ballot measure 26-10, approved by voters in the November 2000 general election, amends the Metro Charter to create the office of Council President and abolish the office of Executive Officer effective January 6, 2003. The measure also requires the Council to create the offices of the Metro Chief Operating Officer and the Metro Attorney.
Charge. The Task Force has been appointed to provide the Executive Officer, the Presiding Officer, and the Council with options to consider for structuring the roles, responsibilities, and relationships between and among the Council President, the Council, the Chief Operating Officer, the Metro Attorney, and the department directors.
The Task Force should include options to address the following specific questions:
1. What should be the division of responsibility and authority between the Council, Council President, and Chief Operating Officer for the administration of the agency? What are the duties of the Chief Operating Officer? What offices or functions should report directly to the Council and not be subordinate to the Chief Operating Officer? How is the role of the Chief Operating Officer different from that of Executive Officer?
2. What should be the relationship between the Metro Attorney and the Council, the Council President, and the Chief Operating Officer? Refer to Metro Code Chapter 2.08.
3. What should be the authority of the Chief Operating Officer for hiring and firing department directors?
4. What should be the respective roles of the Chief Operating Officer, Council President, and Council in the development of the annual budget?
Deliverables. The Task Force shall make a written report to the Executive Officer and Presiding Officer containing the information and recommendations described above in the charge to the Task Force. The report is due no later than _______.
Task Force. The Executive and Council offices shall provide staff support to the Task Force, including agendas and minutes. The Task Force may request additional resources from the Executive Officer.
Task Force Organization. The Executive Officer and Presiding Officer will jointly appoint a chair to preside over meetings and deliberations. The Task Force will approve its final report by majority vote. The Task Force will comply with Oregon’s Open Meetings Law.
Sections 16 & 26
Metro Charter
As revised
Section 16. Metro Council.
(1) Creation and Powers. The Metro council is created as the governing body of Metro. Except as this charter provides otherwise, and except for initiative and referendum powers reserved to the voters of Metro, all Metro powers are vested in the council.
(2) Composition. Beginning January 6, 2003, the council consists of seven (7) councilors, one of whom shall be elected at large and designated President of the council and six (6) each nominated and elected from a single district within the Metro area. Until that date the council consists of the seven (7) members of the Metro Council whose terms begin or continue in January 2001 and whose districts continue until replaced.
(3) Initial terms of office. The terms of office of the four councilors receiving the highest number of votes among the seven councilors elected in 1994 end January 4, 1999. The terms of office of the other three councilors end January 6, 1997. Thereafter the term of office of councilor is four years.
(4) Presiding Officer, Council President.
(a) Presiding Officer. At its first meeting each year before 2003, the council shall elect a presiding officer from its councilors.
(b) Council President. The Council President presides over the Council. The Council President sets the council agenda subject to general rules established by a council adopted ordinance. Except as provided otherwise by the Metro Charter, the Council President appoints all members of the committees, commissions and boards created by the rules of the council and ordinances of Metro.
(5) Annual Organizing Resolution. At the first Council meeting each January the Council shall adopt an annual organizing resolution naming a deputy and establishing such committees as the Council deems necessary for the orderly conduct of council business.
(6) Council meetings. The council shall meet regularly in the Metro area at times and places it designates. The council shall prescribe by ordinance the rules to govern conduct of its meetings. Except as this charter provides otherwise, the agreement of a majority of councilors present and constituting a quorum is necessary to decide affirmatively a question before the council.
(7) Quorum. A majority of councilors in office is a quorum for council business, but fewer councilors may compel absent councilors to attend.
(8) Record of proceedings. The council shall keep and authenticate a record of council proceedings.
Section 26. Appointive Offices and Commissions.
(1) Chief Operating Officer. The Council shall provide by ordinance for the creation of the office of the Chief Operating Officer. The Chief Operating Officer’s duties and responsibilities will be more specifically established by ordinance. The Council President appoints the Chief Operating Officer subject to confirmation by the Council. The Chief Operating Officer serves at the pleasure of the Council and is subject to removal by the Council President with the concurrence of the Council.
(2) Metro Attorney. The Council shall provide by ordinance for the creation of the office of Metro Attorney. The Council President appoints the Metro Attorney subject to the confirmation by the Council. The Metro Attorney serves at the pleasure of the Council and is subject to removal by the Council President with the concurrence of the Council.
(3) Other Offices. The Council may provide by ordinance for the creation of other offices not subordinate to the Chief Operating Officer. The duties and responsibilities of these offices will be more specifically established by ordinance. The Council President appoints all other officers subject to confirmation by the Council. All other officers serve at the pleasure of the Council and are subject to removal by the Council President with the concurrence of the Council.
(4) Commissions. The Council may by ordinance create Commissions with duties and responsibilities as specified by the Council. The Council President appoints all Commissioners subject to confirmation by the Council. Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the Council and are subject to removal by the Council President with the concurrence of the Council.
November 26, 2001
METRO ORGANIZATION CHART
METRO CHARTER REFORM
REPORT TO THE METRO COUNCIL BY GOVERNOR BARBARA ROBERTS
JULY 5, 2000
Report on Metro’s Charter Reform Public Involvement Process
BACKGROUND
Voters approved a home-rule charter for Metro in 1992. Prior to that time, Metro’s structure and responsibilities were laid out by the Oregon Legislature. The charter gave voters a chance to make changes and improve upon the structure. Metro is the only regional government in the United States with a home-rule charter and directly elected officials.
Metro’s current Executive Officer submitted a resolution to Council suggesting the original idea for charter reform: that the office of the executive officer be abolished, and an office of Council Chair be established to take its place; a six member council with the Council Chair only voting in case of a tie and the hiring of a regional administrator. Council responded to this suggestion and solicited others by developing the public involvement process outlined in this report. The timing of such a review is significant because, should changes be made to Metro’s charter, they will occur in conjunction with a redistricting as a result of the 2000 census, and with the expiration of the current Executive Officer’s term.
The primary focus of the proposed charter amendment is the relationship between Council and the Executive Office. The current charter is modeled on the State of Oregon’s structure, and features a "separation of powers" between the seven-member Council, each of whom is elected from a geographic district in the Metro region; the Executive Officer, elected regionwide; and the Auditor, also elected regionwide. Council is the policy-making body, and the Executive Officer manages Metro, and implements policy established by the Council.
RESPONSE
During the month of June 2000, Metro engaged in an intensive public process to seek advice on a possible amendment to its home-rule charter as it pertains to the internal governing structure of Metro. Over 150 surveys were sent out to selected community leaders, as well as being available on-line at Metro’s website for public participation. Four community roundtables were held, as well as one-on-one interviews with community leaders who were unable to attend the roundtables.
Several options for an alternative structure were explored, including merging the executive officer and presiding officer positions into a regionally elected leadership position; eliminating the executive officer and having council appoint an agency administrator; and having the presiding officer elected regionally along with Council appointment of an agency administrator. Opinions were also sought regarding the ideal size for Metro Council, whether salary levels for council and the presiding officer were appropriate or needed adjusting, and what the top concepts Metro should be using to guide its decision making.
The quality of discussion and public input has been tremendous, and too lengthy to go into detail here. However, copies of roundtable and interview notes, along with actual surveys and public comment submitted, are available upon request for anyone who would like more information.
This report presents summaries of opinions expressed at the Roundtable Discussions, One-on-One Interviews, and through written surveys. An overall summary of all opinions, along with thematic comments by participants is also included.
SUMMARY OF ROUNDTABLE GROUP DISCUSSIONS
▪ Wilsonville, Jun 23
17 people attended the Wilsonville roundtable: Charlotte Lehan, George Bell, Mary Bell, Ron Cease, Kay Durtschi, Patrick Donaldson, James Draznin, Ken Gervais, Clayton Hannon, Pam Hayden, Carl Hostika, Jane Leo, Tony Marquis, Jim McElliheny, Jilma Meneses, Ray Phelps, and Ian Robertson. Councilors Bragdon and Park were also present.
Discussion was lively, and focused on the need for change at Metro. Several people questioned whether there was really a structural problem, or whether the problem resided in personality conflicts. Most participants were in agreement that the current structure could be improved, either by establishing a true balance of power between Exec and Council, or by electing a regional Presiding Officer to act as a united spokesperson for Metro. Several people mentioned that, regardless of what decision was made, Metro would be well served by clearly delineating the roles and responsibilities of its elected officials and/or appointed administrators.
From a structure perspective, 50% of the group was in favor of having the presiding officer elected regionally and having council appoint an agency administrator (option 3). 12% favored merging the executive officer and presiding officer position into one regionally elected leadership position (option 1). 29% had no opinion, and 2% favored eliminating the executive officer and appointing an agency administrator (option 2).
In terms of the ideal size of Metro council, more than half the group had no opinion or strong feeling. 35% were in favor of enlarging council to nine members. Most of the group did not have an opinion regarding councilor and presiding officer salaries.
The top priorities cited by the group for future decision making were:
1. Increase representation (by creating more, yet smaller, districts)
2. Increase accountability of all elected officials to the public
3. Consolidate the council and executive offices to reduce expenses and streamline the operation.
• Milwaukie, June 26, 2000
11 people were in attendance for this meeting, including one Metro councilor-elect, including: Bernie Foster, Paul Thalhofer, Ethan Seltzer, Carolyn Tomei, Thane Tienson, John Egge, Lou Savage, Matt Hennessee, Hal Busch, Brian Newman, and Rex Burkholder. It was a knowledgeable group that included at least two people who were on Metro’s 1992 charter review committee, and several who were on Multnomah County’s charter review committee. The tone was positive, seeking to increase Metro’s visibility, accountability, and capacity to effectively set policy.
Most participants favored option number 3 -- regionally electing Presiding Officer, and having the Council appoint an agency manager -- believing that there should be one clear locus of authority at Metro, and at the same time a professional managerial capacity. Several however, were concerned that the regionally elected position not become too powerful relative to the council. Although some supported examining additional pay for councilors, the general feeling was that this would best be handled through a compensation commission recommendation, separate from the proposed ballot measure. The formation of an additional charter review committee was also supported.
In terms of options presented to the group for discussion:
• Structure—80% favored option 3; 20 % favored option 2
• Size—40% favored 8 councilors + 1 Presiding Officer, regionally elected, 60% had no preference.
• Salaries—40% supported the possibility of salary increases, but felt this would best be done by a salary commission. 60% had no opinion.
Themes expressed were:
• Agreement that there should be one office that expresses Metro policy, is the clear seat of
accountability, and is (most) responsible for developing a regionwide perspective;
• Belief that a professional manager would benefit Metro, especially the entrepreneurial aspects;
• Visibility of Metro needs to be greatly enhanced.
• Metro needs to make sure the public sees the benefit of any reorganization in terms of Metro’s mission and in terms of products and deliverables.
▪ Gresham, June 27
13 people attended the Gresham Roundtable: Dick Anderson, John Anderson, Chuck Becker, Maggie Collins, Charles Haugh, Gussie McRobert, Stan Morris, Sue O’Halleran, Bob Pung, Richard Ross, Barbara Sullivan, David Swanson (representing Jay Barber), and Robert Taylor. Councilors Monroe, McLain, and Park were also in attendance.
Most of the discussion in this group centered on the ideal structure for Metro’s governance. The majority of the group expressed an opinion that the state model, with a division of power between executive and legislative, is not appropriate for Metro, which is essentially a large local or regional government. As such, there needs to be greater public accountability and accessibility of elected officials, and a continued effort to encourage citizen and intergovernmental involvement and collaboration. Metro’s existing division of power creates public perception problems regarding who’s in charge, who really speaks on behalf of the agency as a whole, and what the actual roles and responsibilities of the elected officials really are.
Although there was a strong trend to structure Metro with a regionally elected presiding officer and an appointed administrator (option 3), 23% of the group favored moving towards more of a Council/City Manager type of government, by leaving council structure as is, eliminating the executive officer, and appointing an administrator (option 2). Arguments in favor of this option focused on the belief that a regionally elected presiding officer would essentially just replace the current regionally elected executive officer, continuing the conflict and imbalance of power.
Very little discussion was had regarding the ideal size for Metro Council. 62% of the group were undecided, or had no opinion, and remainder favored keeping council as is, with seven members.
The top priorities cited by the group for future decision making were:
1. Clarify who speaks on behalf of Metro Council
2. Provide greater accountability of elected officials to the public
3. Clarify respective roles and responsibilities of elected officials and paid administrators, and increase operational efficiency.
• Beaverton, June 28, 2000
This was the largest of the regional roundtables, with 23 participants: Jan Young, Al Young, Cathy Stanton, Gary Conkling, Steve Larrance, Larry Derr, Jeff Condit, Mayor Rob Drake, Dave White, Jim Zehren, Ken Stuckmeier, Donnie Griffin, Dick Schouten, Joe D’Alessandro, Jon Chandler, Kelly Ross, Ned Look, Jon Mandaville, Sue Marshall, Mayor Ralph Brown, Bill Gaffi, Dan Logan, and Lise Glancy. The group covered a lot of ground as well. Items covered ranged from size and number of committees to whether having the governor appoint council members should be an option. The idea of having a governor-appointed Council was a unique potential solution, raised at the Beaverton roundtable and nowhere else. A plurality favored option 3 — regionally elected PO, council appointed administrator. However, nearly as many favored option 1— regionally elected PO/Executive, with no administrator, seeming to favor a strong leader/manager. This same perspective brought out the idea that conflict, between an executive function and legislative function, was part of the territory, and if used correctly, would allow time and opportunity for wide ranging participation by citizens and other interested parties. Many felt that the council should hire the chief legal counsel.
Many relational aspects were discussed, such as determining whom Metro’s main constituency is, clarifying Metro’s relationship with local governments, neighborhoods and MPAC, and level of citizen participation. In the same vein the central city (Portland) vis-a-vis the outlying centers and suburbs also came up in terms of outcomes of Metro decision-making.
While most participants seemed to favor the hiring of an administrator, there was also a desire for a strong Metro leader, able to drive and publicly deliver an agenda and raise Metro’s image.
In terms of options delivered to the group for discussion:
• Structure—57% preferred option #3, while 43% preferred option 1.
• Number of Councilors—39% favored 6 councilors and 1 PO, 39% were undecided, 13% favored nine councilors and 2 9% thought less than seven was the right number.
• Salary—78% expressed no opinion, 17% felt that they probably are too low and 4% felt they are too high.
Themes:
• Explore/strengthen/clarify Metro’s relation to citizens, local governments and others;
• Want strong leader; conflict is not all bad;
• Metro is not an all purpose government, this should color decisions about structure as well as purpose
▪ Conclusion of Roundtable Discussions
63 invited guests participated in the four community round tables. Discussion was very positive; focusing on what needs improving, rather than getting stuck in the past. At the same time very knowledgeable individuals helped explain the context for the current Metro structure by detailing aspects of past charter amendment discussions and past Council decisions.
Taken as a whole, the predominant view might be characterized as preferring option 3, informally known as the “Washington County” model. This calls for elimination of the current Executive Officer position and creating a regionally elected Presiding Officer position at the Council level. Option 3 also requires appointment of a professional manager responsible to the Council to manage the affairs of the agency.
Although this model leavens power between the council and the presiding officer, a strong feeling in roundtable discussion favors a strong leader, able to create and drive a regional agenda and communicate with the media and public. In this position would also rest a seat of accountability that currently seems dispersed.
Generally 7-9 council members seem to be the desired number. The main factors in discussion of this issue were manageability of the council itself, representation in terms of number of voters per district, and what number would best produce regional policy making.
While there was some interest in exploring higher salaries for the council, several individuals cautioned that the issue should be taken up in a different venue, such as a compensation commission. It was felt that to include this issue on a November ballot would prove harmful to a vote focused on a new structure for the organization.
Finally, a theme that also permeated discussion was that Metro does provide many services that the public supports (Zoo, land use goals, Open Spaces protection), but that the public needs to be better informed that it is in fact Metro that is doing them.
SUMMARY OF SURVEYS
A total of 83 written and online surveys were received. Most respondents (89%) thought Metro’s structure should be changed. The three most-frequently cited reasons were
1) to minimize conflict between the Executive and the Council
2) to clarify the distinction between managing the agency itself and making regional policy; and
3) to increase efficiency (of communications, staff, decision-making).
The majority would prefer to have the presiding officer elected regionally, but are nearly evenly split about whether the executive officer should merge with the PO position (slight preference for electing the PO and having an appointed manager). Most think the council should have seven members.
The guiding principle for reform most important to people seems to be
1) provide clarity to the public regarding policy-making at Metro
2) to clarify who speaks for Metro, and
3) to increase efficiency.
SUMMARY OF 1-ON-1 INTERVIEWS
18 one-on-one interviews were conducted between individual councilors and selected community leaders Vic Atiyeh, Tom Brian, Joe D’Alessandro, Gordon Faber, Ralph Gilbert, Neil Goldschmidt, Rick Gustafson, Matt Hennessee, Bill Kennemer, Delna Jones, Mike Jordan, Robert Liberty, Don McCLave, Lisa Naito, Robert Pamplin, Dick Reiten, Carl Talton, John Williams, and Bev Stein.
The tone of the interviews varied between participants, but some trends emerged from the discussions. Half the group supported option 3, to elect a regionwide presiding officer and have council appoint an agency administrator (it would likely be merged with the position currently occupied by the Chief Operating Officer).
More than half the participants felt the ideal size for council is seven members, and none had strong opinions regarding salaries for either councilors or presiding officer. Of pressing interest to the group as a whole were the following priorities for council to focus on in future decision making: clarifying who speaks for Metro, providing clarity regarding policy-making, and establishing a regionally elected voice for Metro.
SUMMARY OF ALL PUBLIC INPUT
A statistical analysis of expressed opinions is attached. Of the 164 participants in this process, close to half (49%) felt that, in terms of structure, option 3, electing a regionwide presiding officer and having council appoint an agency administrator was the best choice for charter reform. 28% supported combining the presiding officer and the executive officer into one elective office, chosen from the regional electorate. Not surprisingly, consolidation of these offices ranked number 5 among 14 priorities expressed to guide council in future decision making.
44% of those participating felt that the current size of council is appropriate, and does not require changing. Where a larger number was suggested, 25% of the participants felt that nine members would be a better mix.
With the exception of a very low percentage of participants feeling council or presiding officer salaries were too high, opinions regarding appropriate salaries were mixed. Most people (47%) had no opinion. 29% felt salaries were too low, and 21% felt they were just right as is.
Many visionary concepts for council decision making emerged, with the three highest priorities being:
1. Provide clarity regarding policy-making at Metro
2. Clarify who speaks for Metro
3. Increase efficiency
COMMENTARY AND NOTES
Copies of thematic notes of one-on-one interviews and roundtables, along with survey documents and commentary, are available in Metro Council office for public review.
In addition to the conclusion and summary material above, the following is offered to suggest some of themes that emerged during the process, with key comments for each:
Need for consolidation of offices
▪ Need one set of elected officials overseeing the operation, with paid person in charge of administration. Most efficient – one set of outcomes; no redundancy of resources; united message.
▪ During the original reform, there were split views on what would or wouldn’t work. Compromise was that council creates policy and exec keeps distance. This was a mistake. Council became stronger, but Exec was weakened
▪ 1) No unified message/vision is evident in Metro’s public presence; 2) energy is dissipated internally and externally by power struggle between the council and executive
▪ Conflict between the executive office and the council impedes decision-making.
▪ As staff it sometimes appears as though the agency speaks with two voices, thereby giving an impression of not being internally coordinated or focused. Staff must also walk “the fence” when coordinating with the executive office and the council office. It is a bit like a dysfunctional family.
▪ Duplication of staff functions.
Need for a Metro-specific governance solution
▪ Metro is similar to neither local nor state government – it is a hybrid, and requires a hybrid solution.
▪ People like structures they’re familiar with. Metro is too big; too large scale for City Manager type government. Having an elected administrator is critical for separation of powers. Many different interests in community need to be represented by Council.
▪ Metro is essentially one big local government, but the Council/Mayor form of government won’t work with Metro, because the population base is so large
▪ Separately elected executive and legislative structure, while suitable for the federal government, is too cumbersome for Metro. It contributes to an image of disunity and less than complete effectiveness as perceived by local governments, employees, and the public.
▪ Metro is not a general-purpose government, hence a strong Presiding Officer is OK.
Size of Council and representation
▪ Fewer council members (e.g. 5) actually produces better regional policy-making.
▪ Six districts (i.e. six councilors and one PO) result in too many voters per councilor in each district. It is already the case that few people know their Metro councilor.
Need for a balance of power
▪ Metro shouldn’t further weaken the Exec – need to restore balance of power. Elected manager is continually undercut by legislative branch. Legislative doesn’t provide leadership. These proposals are heading in the wrong direction.
▪ There needs to be a greater partnership and public relationship between EO and Council. Any system will work if people are motivated. Our system is not working – it is set up to make if more difficult for Metro to be strong and united.
▪ Metro is like a two-headed beast – nothing really happens because there is a constant pushing and pulling between the two for dominance
▪ Original reform was structured so that there would be a balance between Exec and council. The other side of the balance is divisiveness, which is what is occurring now
Potential issues with electing a regional presiding officer
▪ How would it be different if the executive officer and presiding officer are combined? The new position would still control staff and might be at odds with council.
▪ It might be more confusing to elect a regional PO than to get rid of EO and continue appointing PO from council.
▪ A regional person, in order to get elected, has to promote a vision that he or she may not be able to carry out because it’s at odds with council as a whole. I don’t like the idea of a regionally elected PO – creates a division right from the start.
▪ The PO should be chosen by the council from among them for the leadership qualities they respect. Regional electorate has no way of judging those qualities.
Need to clarify roles and responsibilities of elected officials and appointed staff
▪ Need a strong business or management plan and written clarification regarding roles and responsibilities
▪ The duties of the PO/EO should be spelled out in the Charter. It makes little sense to elect a region-wide official and have the performance of that position left to the district elected officials. I also feel very strongly that the Auditor should be responsible for monitoring the fiscal operation of the agency. By so doing, this will provide the Council with the assurance that the agency is performing within the fiscal policies set by the Council.
▪ The idea of an elected Auditor is fundamentally flawed. This system ensures that audits will always be viewed as “political” in nature, and exposes good professional work to partisan criticism. In a “perfect Metro world,” I would have Executive Director (manager), Chief Counsel and Auditor as appointed positions that answer directly to the Council. They, in turn, would be responsible for recruiting and managing the rest of the agency staff. Again, this is a proven system that is employed at most municipalities across the country and is time-tested.
Need for greater accountability
▪ An elected chair will have more accountability. The currently elected executive officer has no accountability to voters because s/he is not a policy maker. The current system is broken. Executive officer tries to drive policy and Council are the policy setters. Executive officer should be the implementer. Council has no control over executive officer– no accountability either way, resulting in mixed messages and agendas to the public
▪ Any efforts to make the agency more effective and efficient with accountability to its employees and the public is needed. Hopefully there will be more interaction with the staff of the agency and the council and its leader.
▪ Candidates for Metro council offices should be encouraged or required to have prior experience at the local government level – this would held them see a little bit bigger piece of the picture in terms of public service issues, and how the provision of services happens at the local level.
▪ You can’t have accountability with split or ambiguous authority.
Need for a single voice of leadership
▪ We need a person who can speak about regionwide issues – a single focal point.
▪ We need to facilitate better regional leadership—on the issues, of the agency, of staff
▪ Metro needs to have one, consistent voice and work as efficiently as possible in order to carry out the 2040 vision and move beyond that.
▪ Want a strong leader who can create and drive an agenda—keep focus for the organization.
▪ If the Presiding Officer is chosen by other councilors, as in present situation, then citizens can’t vote for the leadership position.
▪ It is important to centralize staff/commission communications through one person
▪ The structure leads to a lack of credibility …it is easier for us to deal with City of Portland and Multnomah County because we know who is in charge there.
Questioning Nature of Need for Reform
▪ I’m not convinced there’s a problem with the existing structure. Sounds like internal conflicts. Changing the structure won’t help that problem.
▪ No compelling reason to ask voters to make a fundamental change. Why doesn’t the current model work?
▪ Important to clarify which current (or past) problems arise from personality conflicts, which truly arise from Metro structure
▪ For success of any charter amendment and continued success of the council, it will be imperative to make advantages clear, on a concrete, grassroots level, to regional voters. How will such a change benefit my community
▪ The current system is not broken. It is only the product of personality difference between the current EO and former PO. This is insufficient justification to change a charter that is only 7 years old
▪ Metro’s problem is not its structure! It is its funding and the controversy it naturally attracts. The structure issue is a red herring and a way to avoid the real issues.
▪ The changes are not going to help the lack of funds which causes some of the difficulties
▪ The current structure was well thought out and the right people could make it work. I’m not sure any change would improve things.
▪ Conflict (as between the Executive and Council) is in the nature of things and to be expected. It is dysfunctional only when covered up. When it is on the table it can serve the useful purpose of slowing things down and opening them up for public scrutiny.
Other non-structural issues
▪ Lack of funding is the real problem.
▪ There should be a charter review committee to look into other issues, like term limits.
▪ The committee system hides a lot of decision-making from the public.
▪ The main problem is that Metro hasn’t identified its main constituency.
▪ Metro should become more involved in social issues, like it has in affordable housing.