Transition Advisory Task Force
November 26, 2001
3:30 p.m., Council Annex
Meeting Minutes
1. Meeting called to order at 3:35 pm by Chair Jeff Condit
He provided welcoming remarks.
2. Introductions
Committee members introduced themselves and provided some background information on themselves.
3. Welcome & explanation of Task Force Charter – Bragdon, Burton
David Bragdon, Metro Council Presiding Officer, welcomed the members of the committee and explained how the council is structured, and how the presiding officer is chosen. He said that he views the role of presiding officer as serving the other six councilors, and administering the council staff. He said that the Presiding Officer is the most public face, both internally and externally. He noted that the Presiding Officer receives twice the salary as the other councilors, and is expected to be on duty in more of a full-time capacity. He said that there will be major differences between the current Presiding Officer and the new President of the Council. The constituency becomes the voters of the region instead of six other councilors, and that the President of the Council will be elected after a public campaign in which policy issues are aired, as opposed to administrative issues or who gets along well. He said that this individual will be elected to a four-year term rather than year to year.
Mr. Bragdon said that he thought that the challenges to the committee flowed from those differences, and that is to define the limits and the authority of the new job in two particular areas, first between the regionally elected person and the other six councilors, and the relationship between that individual and the rest of the agency on the other. He said that Metro has the reputation of being a two-headed monster, and we don’t want to substitute a situation where there are suddenly seven bosses for employees or seven different voices speaking for the agency.
Felicia Trader said that it was her understanding that the Chief Operating Officer would report to the Council President beginning in January, 2003. She asked if a possible campaign issue would be the structure and administration of the agency. David indicated that he felt that could be an important issue during the campaign.
Rick Gustafson asked about the availability of David and others to the Task Force, and the easiest and best way to contact key staff. David Bragdon and Mike Burton indicated that they are intending to participate in as many meetings as they can, and that Task Force members are welcome to call, e-mail or fax at any time. Both also indicated their willingness to meet with Task Force members on an individual basis if desired.
Mike Burton also thanked the task force members for their time and for the experience they brought to the group. He noted that everyone shared a belief in regional governments, and noted that many other areas throughout the country are struggling because of a lack of a regional perspective. He noted that he was the first presiding officer in 1978, when Rick Gustafson was the executive. He noted that he was elected in 1994 as executive officer, and was the first executive officer under the charter that had been adopted by the voters in 1992. He said that during the campaign for his position, the two issues that kept coming up over and over were the UGB, and what the role of the executive officer was. Was it a manager or was it a leader. He said that it became an even larger issue during the general election, and realized very quickly that it would continue to be an issue after the election. He noted that Metro has over 1,200 bodies working for it, $400 million budget, close to $1 billion in assets, 5 million people per year using Metro facilities. He said that Metro operates garbage, recycling, transfer facilities, a convention center, an exposition center, a zoo, 7,500 acres of parks & openspaces – Blue Lake, Oxbow, land holdings, Glisan Boat Ramp, Chinook Boat Landing, Glendoveer Golf Course, pioneer cemeteries, operate and manage PCPA for the City of Portland. Metro has a total of 8 different union locals that it negotiates with. Metro also has one of the most advanced GIS systems in the country.
Mr. Burton indicated that if you look at the charter, Metro’s first constituency is local governments because of the land use and transportation planning responsibilities. He said that the planning must continue no matter what.
Mr. Burton noted that in the past the relationship between the council and executive had become an issue. He said that upon review, almost 99% of the legislation generated in his first five years as executive were generated from the executive and staff. It began to appear as the council were reacting to the executive rather than initiating policies. He said that the current council is much more proactive, both in its desire to initiate policy and also to work with the executive to implement policy. Mr. Burton said that what is still missing though was the consistent ability to have policy made and implemented by the same people. He noted that under the current structure, the executive officer is the regionally elected voice. The executive officer has no vote, and has a veto over financial matters only. He said that he used the veto authority once in seven years, and it was overridden immediately. He said that there should be a way for the person who was regionally elected to become more involved in policy development. From his perspective, it’s dumb to elect managers. Citizens should elected regional leaders who appoint managers, and also elect auditors to oversee how everyone’s doing.
Mr. Burton said that the fundamental component is now there. There will be an integrated, single authority, now we have to figure out how to manage it. What we’re asking for the task force to do is look at how a regional government goes about providing the services it provides, whether it’s planning, or recycling, or whatever. He said that this is the only government he’s aware of that has the responsibility to look ahead. How can we form an organization under this new charter that allows us to do what we do better – whether it’s involving the public, getting advice from staff or working with local jurisdictions. How can we form the organization so that what needs to be done gets done in a way that works, but isn’t so confusing that no one can figure it out? He said that’s the goal of this task force. To create something that’s not existed in the past, and to achieve something that has not been achieved anywhere else.
Jeff Alden asked to what extent does the task force need to address what happens between now and January 2003.
Mike Burton responded to say that regardless of what happens in January 2003, that the weight of recommendations coming from this group will set in motion the things that should happen. Hopefully, the budget process that’s beginning now with recommendations to the council may end up reflecting what the new organization should look like, and it should be effective July 1, 2002. He said that the FTE already exists, even though there may be some shifting. The primary election for the council president and for three council positions is in May 2002. If there are clear winners in that election, that should make the whole transition easier. If the task force can make recommendations in March, then they can be incorporated into the work to come.
David Bragdon agreed with Mike Burton’s comments. He noted that from his perspective, there is now a better working relationship between the exec and the council, with more integration in all processes. He said that the council has taken on responsibility for staffing MCCI, once of the charter mandated committees. He noted that there have been some personnel changes in the council office, mainly with some restructuring and reassigning of responsibilities based on the report of consultants. He said that the buck still stops with Mike until January 2003. He said that this has been discussed at two council retreats this year, and the council agrees. Mr. Bragdon said that there is buy-in from other councilors on how things should be structured until January 2003. He said that he felt that it was important to have a group like this with outside expertise to aid in getting this right, so that it doesn’t turn into a candidate or personality issue.
Mike Burton said that if there are things to start doing now that the task force will need to let us know. He said that you can’t just flip a switch on January 6, 2003 and have a new order in place.
David Bragdon said that concerning the job description or position of regional administrator/chief operating officer that it’s going to be hard to recruit with uncertainties of elections. In an ideal world, it would be nice if there could be some overlap with Mike and Pete.
Larry Hilderbrand observed of the task force itself, in discussing how this group was selected, that it seemed pretty status quo to him, and he asked if there had been some thought about a certain income standard, age group, what kind of consideration went into creating some diversity.
Mike Burton said that there was thought given to geographic locations, employemnt, background, involvement. He said that others had been asked, but were not able to participate. In considerations about how government affects people, if there’s a way to focus on people, take that into account. How can we provide services equitably to all people.
Felicia Trader said that it felt as though there was an obligation to have the dollar savings that were noted in the measure, and that she felt a little bit hamstrung because of that.
Mike Burton said that he felt that savings would be in efficiency, rather than dollars. He reminded the task force that Metro does not have a general fun. General fund revenue comes from the ability to generate excise tax, and that there were excise taxes on everything except purchases at PCPA.
Rob Drake said that he assumed that the group will listen to other opinions. Why wouldn’t they also listen to Mike or David’s opinions?
Mike Burton said that he would be happy to share his opinions, but did not want to force his opinions on the task force.
Gary Blackmer asked about the type of product that Mike and David would like and what kind of timeframe were they working on.
Mike Burton said that he and David hoped that the task force would have a product by March. Maybe series of recommendations encompassing relationships, job descriptions, reporting hierarchies.
Jeff Condit said that he would hope that the task force could come up with final document possibly with specific policy or ordinance recommendations. He said that when he was City Attorney of Lake Oswego, they would meet with candidates for the elected positions early, right after they filed, and would provide a briefing, a packet of information about the position they were running for, and would describe what the role is. He said that when the elected officials first came into office, they would hold a retreat and review the material they were presented with prior to running. He said that is one thing he would recommend right off the bat. In terms of parameters, he said that we have the charter, it makes the changes, the basic structure is there, our authority is to describe the details. Chair Condit said that the way that it was sold to voters is the way we have to look at it. He didn’t think we have to say how we’re going to cut $400,000 out of budget, but we have to at least look at how that might be possible.
4. Discussion & adoption of workplan & schedule – Condit
Chair Condit noted that there is a tentative workplan that he has discussed with Pete Sandrock. He noted that Pete was working on process of getting input from Metro staff. He said that the task force also needs to think about the involvement of the two charter mandated committees, MPAC and MCCI, and how they might brief those committees and get input and thoughts from them.
Judie Hammerstad said that in looking at the workplan, the missing piece to her is an articulation of the issues and options that might occur. She said that they had background material, and local government models might lay out some options that would be attractive.
Rob Drake said that a few years ago, when things were heating up, there was a group that was meeting quietly to figure out where things should go. It also led up to the charter change, and he said that he could come up with a list of suspects that it might be beneficial for the task force to hear from. He also suggested that it might be beneficial to go way back to the charter committee and hear from some of those people as well.
Chair Condit asked if the task force should hear from those people before or after the issues are identified.
Rob Drake suggested that it could be done simultaneously.
Larry Hildebrand said that while all of the history is interesting, he lived through the charter amendment. He didn’t want to go back and review that. What he would rather see are the models and the budget. He said that he felt that by discussing the budget he could get a better handle on what Metro is all about. Not try and second guess based on what someone says, but truly get a better introduction on what Metro really does.
Chair Condit said that they really do have a great deal of Metro history available to them, whether it’s in printed material or in institutional memory around the table and in the room, and that the task force should start talking about the Metro structure and budget. Then move into local government modes, since most of those modes are represented around the table as well.
Larry Hildebrand said that it would seem to him that the task force would better to spend their time focusing on those local government models that Metro will have to live with. Ask the question of local governments and find out how they are doing what Metro has told the voters it will do with this charter amendment.
Jeff Alden said that he would like to go back to what Judie said about defining the issues. He pointed the committee to the September 25 memo that lists four sets of issues that the task force has been asked to address. He said he thought that between now and the next meeting one of the things that individuals should do is to think if there are additional issues that need to be brought out for the transition. He said that when we get input from other people that we want that input to be directed at what we think we are going to need to make decisions about. It doesn’t preclude anyone from suggesting that there may be more or other issues that ought to occupy our time, but it would help focus the discussion.
Chair Condit said that he thought Jeff’s idea was a good one. He suggested that others come up with their own list of issues.
Rick Gustafson said that he thought it was critical that the task force understand some of the issues. He said that he thought that is was important that this group set up goals and criteria that it uses to judge the recommendations that its making so that there will be some checks and balances in the approach.
Chair Condit said that during the development of the original charter there were issues that came up every time. He said that balancing those issues became the tough part. He said that local governments recommended the model that was eventually adopted. He said that everyone had become tired of the infighting of the 13-member council, and eventually came up with the elected executive and seven-member council, mainly because they didn’t want to lose the horsepower of a region-wide voice. He noted that with the charter amendment, the closest model is the Washington County model. They have an elected chair, and commissioners elected by region. They also have a professional administrator. The chair presides at the meetings, but has no more direct power than any other commissioner. Multnomah County is a little different. The chair is also the county executive. She makes the appointments. That’s more power than the voters gave the Metro charter amendment.
Felicia Trader suggested that the task force might want to look at Gresham, where there’s a stronger city manager in place.
Mike Burton suggested that if everyone has issues, that they e-mail them in and staff will compile them. He also suggested that in getting models, if the task force would let us know how they would like that done, then we’ll invite the appropriate people in to discuss with the task force. He reminded the committee that amongst their own membership they have several representatives that could discuss various models of governance as well.
Judie Hammerstad said that if they could get some sort of matrix or visual that could be easily understood. She said that one of the things that she wrestles with in public policy is how to inoculate an organization against bad voter choices. She said that of course, there’s no way to do that, but if you look at a structure and the people who are currently in office and look at what works, it may work now, but it may not, depending on who is elected.
Chair Condit said that Judie’s point is a good one. It is difficult, but needed, that a task force like this one look at how the organization might be inoculated.
Rob Drake said that the implication is that you will elect a council or board that will hire a good executive. That isn’t always the case, and everyone knows that. If you look at the average life span of a city manager is not very long. He said that as a reminder, we are a public agency, and a lot of it is who comes. Things have to be structured to attract good people, regardless of who is elected.
Gary Blackmer said that he agreed with Mike that personalities do have a big role in what works and what doesn’t. A lot of times, what’s written and recommended have nuances depend on the people who are in those different positions. He said that one place where he would disagree is that he would like to see us elect more managers. Too many people run for public office with grand goals and objectives, but don’t have a clue how to make their goals or objectives work in the real world.
Jeff Condit suggested that everyone prepare their lists of issues and e-mail them to Cathy Kirchner. He asked if Cathy could compile them into a document for use at the next meeting. He asked if the committee wanted to try and establish a meeting schedule now or via e-mail.
Rob Drake suggested establishing a set day and time for ease of scheduling.
After discussion, the committee decided to meet again on December 19, and then asked everyone to block every Wednesday, from 3 – 5 pm, in January, February and March.
Judie Hammerstad asked if it was the intention of this group to hold any kind of public hearing.
Chair Condit noted that if the recommendations resulted in ordinances, then the Council would be required to hold a public hearing.
Ted Kyle suggested adding a citizen communication item to the agendas for the upcoming meetings. He noted that would address a concern that MCCI has expressed about citizen participation in the transition process.
Adjourned 5:10 p.m.