The Portland Charter Commission is considering two proposals for city governance. The commission is especially interested in the split of responsibilities among the mayor, the City Council and the city manager.

The two proposals presented to the commission are radically different. One proposal was developed after many hours of interviews and deliberations by the commission’s Governance Committee. The other was sprung upon the full commission in what could only be considered a surprise move to avoid vetting by the Governance Committee.

One proposal was the result of analyzing our current system of government and offered concrete solutions to those problems. The other offers a completely different management approach that figuratively “throws the baby out with the bathwater.”

The proposal submitted by the Governance Committee increases the influence of the mayor over the city manager but still relies upon a collaborative approach between the mayor and the City Council. The other sets up separate fiefdoms between an executive mayor and the City Council, where conflict will be inevitable.

I have, more than once, praised the hard work by the various committees and have stated my support for many of the preliminary proposals put forward. But the way these proposals are being handled causes me great concern.

The commission started their work with pledges to complete transparency. But I’m now wondering: How is a proposal taken seriously when it was developed by one person, without oversight or collaboration, and is not supported by the majority of the commissioners on the Governance Committee?

William Weber
Portland