As a former resident and current property owner/taxpayer in Portland, I am intrigued by the machinations of the Charter Commission, which seems intent on finding a problem to solve in municipal government. I have yet to read a single convincing argument as to why a majority of members are so zealous to change a shared governance model to an ‘executive’ mayor position that, in effect, would transform the city manager to chief water carrier for an all-powerful overseer of everything. Their rationale is that this establishes a more democratic form of government. The proponents fail to see the irony: that it creates a more autocratic form of government.

It is interesting to speculate what the commission would advocate if the current mayor, rather than the former city manager, had been labeled a ‘racist’ by one of the commissioners. If this was so, would they favor a stronger manager and a diminished role for mayor? It is worth noting that the commission’s response to the opposition of 15 former mayors with decades of public service is to proceed with their ‘progressive’ agenda without compromise.

They are working hard at their task, but to what end? Some critics decry their lack of transparency; I see too much transparency revealing ineptitude and naivete. If their process was more grounded in facts, exhibited fewer distractions and less internal squabbling, articulated a more compelling purpose, demonstrated an understanding of the distinctions between management and governance, and if any of them had previously served in an elected or appointed role, bringing experience and knowledge to their deliberations, we skeptics might be more inclined to give them the benefit of our considerable doubts.

Michael Beaudoin
Falmouth

Copy the Story Link