A group opposing two of the Portland Charter Commission’s key recommendations launched its campaign Wednesday morning before a crowd of about 75 people in Payson Park.

Protect Portland’s Future describes itself as a non-partisan volunteer group opposing proposals for an executive mayor and school board budget autonomy, said Chair Tom Allen.

“Our main message to the voters of Portland is really simple: Vote no on Questions 2 and 5 and anything else you don’t understand,” said Allen, who served as mayor from 1991-92 and represented the 1st Congressional District as a Democrat from 1997-09.

The charter commission’s governance proposal – Question 2 on city ballots – is one of the most significant and controversial referendum questions headed to Portland voters in November.

It would establish an executive mayor who would lead city budget development – currently the job of the city manager – and could nominate department heads and veto council ordinances. The more powerful mayor, who would no longer be a member of the City Council, would nominate a new chief administrator to replace, but have less power, than the city manager.

“Do candidates for City Council want to serve in a diminished role where they will constantly need to be seeking the mayor’s approval and support?” Allen asked the crowd Wednesday morning, to which they shouted, “No!”

“Can Portland attract experienced, high-quality administrative staff and keep talented local workers when their jobs may be on the line every four years?” he asked. “It’s a recipe for disaster for Portland, and that’s why we’re opposed to it.”

The commission also has not calculated the costs of most of its proposals. “How much will the commission’s revolution in city government cost taxpayers? Too much. We don’t know and the commission never even tried to figure out that number,” he said.

The commission has estimated the cost of one of its proposals – clean elections – at about $290,000 annually for a public funding mechanism for city office candidates. Mayor Kate Snyder has also requested a staff financial analysis of the proposals, which is expected to be done by the Sept. 19 council meeting.

SUPPORTERS DEFEND PROPOSALS

Commission members who support the executive mayor and school budget proposals pushed back on the criticism from Protect Portland’s Future and its supporters Wednesday.

Michael Kebede, who chaired the commission, pointed out that the governance proposal was approved by 8 of 12 commissioners and the school board budget autonomy proposal, which would eliminate the City Council vote to approve yearly school budgets, also gained majority approval.

“Those are numbers that give me confidence,” Kebede said. “They are numbers that convince me a good process was followed and they’re numbers you rarely get in very divided and partisan bodies. I believe we did great work. I’m proud of my fellow commissioners and I think each reform will make Portland more accountable and more democratic.”

Pat Washburn, one of the 12 commissioners, said the executive mayor is necessary “so we have someone making the most important decisions for the city who is accountable to voters.” Under the proposal, the council would provide a check on the mayor’s power through its ability to override vetoes, remove the mayor from office with a three-quarters majority vote or order a recall election.

“I think they have plenty of opportunities to work together with the mayor and I think they also have opportunities to convey disapproval of the mayor,” Washburn said.

Zack Barowitz, who also served on the commission, said he was not surprised to hear of the opposition. He said some criticism has come from people like Allen who built their careers under the current system, but that doesn’t mean there’s no need for change.

“Their interest to some extent is to protect their legacy, which is fine, but I’m trying to move Portland forward,” Barowitz said.

He said the current situation in Portland – with 13 referendum questions, eight from the commission – stems from frustration with the city’s elected officials and current system of government.

“One of our aims is to not only empower the mayor by having a separate executive branch … but also to empower the City Council to be more invested in ensuring the administrative branch is actually carrying out policies in the way they want and hopefully that leads to fewer referendum questions, which I think will be a relief to everyone,” Barowitz said.

Kebede said the commission’s attorney did not recommend providing cost estimates of the proposals. “There’s nothing in state statute that requires it,” Kebede said. “There’s nothing in the custom of charter reform in Maine that requires it, nor does our attorney recommend it … the last charter commission was not pressured by anyone to do it, as far as I know, nor did they do it.”

‘A RECIPE FOR DISASTER’

Allen was joined Wednesday by several former mayors who came out against the strong mayor proposal in April, as well as two members of the charter commission, Dory Waxman and Peter Eglinton, who opposed the proposal.

Former Mayor Jill Duson, who like Allen served as an appointed mayor prior to the city’s change to an elected mayor in 2010, said the proposal is a bad idea for Portland. “It puts us at high risk of some unwanted ‘shenanigans’ in the running of our city by returning to the days of political politicians, political favoritism, political patronage and wasteful, inefficient government,” Duson said.

Eglinton said the commission has not demonstrated a need for an executive mayor and that the four commissioners who voted against the proposal believe it goes “too far, too fast.”

Eglinton pointed to the work of the commission’s governance committee, which originally decided not to recommend an executive mayor and proposed more modest changes, which Eglinton said could have gained more widespread support.

“We, the commissioners in the minority, are concerned about the risks of polarization between an executive mayor and the council and the possibility of undue political influence over the day-to-day operations of the city,” Eglinton said. “We believe the power to set policy and ordinances should rest solely with the democratically elected City Council, led by the mayor.”

The crowd gathered for the campaign launch Wednesday held signs that said, “Protect Portland’s Future” and “Vote No Question #2.”

Betsy Sawyer-Manter, 64, a city resident for more than 40 years, said the current system works. “Why do we need to do something different that puts all the power in the hands of one person?” she said.

She said she worries about the city’s ability to attract a good administrator and department heads if they “serve at the whim of one person,” and that it would be easier for an unqualified person to rise to power.

“With a city manager, that person has to have a resume that backs up why they should get that job,” Sawyer-Manter said. “If it’s an elected official (who takes on more of that authority), it could be anybody. Not to say everyone has to have a master’s or a Ph.D., but they should have some experience running a city the size of Portland.”

Mary Ellen Deschenes, who also attended the event, said she thinks the executive mayor proposal would be “a recipe for disaster” because it would politicize the government and lead to people “being able to buy influence.”

“People who aren’t paying attention need to start paying attention before voting day because there are some things being proposed that will create a lot of problems in the city,” said Deschenes, 68.

MANY QUESTIONS AND COMMITTEES 

The city was originally expecting 14 referendum questions on the ballot, but the City Council last week voted to postpone action on a council-initiated question to incorporate gender neutral language in the charter. Still, in addition to the eight charter commission questions, voters are also being asked to consider five citizen-initiated ones.

Protect Portland’s Future is not taking a group position on the other six charter commission questions, though Allen said they are encouraging people to vote down any they don’t understand.

“There are so many questions here that I think if voters aren’t persuaded a question makes sense, they should vote no,” Allen said. “To expect that everyone in Portland, or most of the voters, understand all eight of the questions from the charter commission plus the other five, it’s just crazy. Government by referendum makes no sense.”

Protect Portland’s Future is one of six ballot question committees to register with the city ahead of the November election. Ballot question committees must register if they spend more than $5,000 to influence or initiate referendum questions, while political action committees must register if they spend more than $2,500 on a candidate’s election. According to an initial campaign finance report, Protect Portland’s Future has so far raised $4,775.

« Previous

Portland man arrested in Riverton Park shooting

Next »

10 apple orchards to visit in southern Maine