I've been waiting to see what you'd say about this proposal. Points to you for your consistent position on process. How anyone--other than the Oregonian editorial board, who are justly famous for their many irrational positions--can say that two guys creating a new process from scratch on their own without public input and with essentially no time even for discussion by much of anyone is an improvement to the process is beyond me. It seems to be quite a popular position among the self-identified "process" set, however. You appear to be a rare exception. The current Chavez committee consulted all five commissioners and agreed to do everything they were asked to do in pursuit of the Interstate Avenue renaming (some of which is in the current code and some of which goes well beyond it) and I think it's unfair to change the rules on them midstream. (You are, of course, correct that the proper way to avoid that is to have sensible rules written down that everyone can follow and then have everyone follow them. I sincerely look forward to the debate over what those rules should be--it's clear enough to me that the current ones have been woefully inadequate at fulfilling that purpose.) Personally, I suspect that you are correct in your prediction that if their proposal should pass what Commissioners Leonard and Adams would be facing is five sets of angry neighbors rather than one. There might be some poetic justice in there somewhere but I can't find it in my heart to wish that on Our Fair City.

Thanks, Doretta. The new proposal on the table for this afternoon is interesting to me in part because it does (top-down) propose a street for renaming in five different parts of town. So that has made me think more about "What if in my neighborhood?", and likely will do the same for others who have watched the Interstate arguments from a distance. The street proposed for SW is Capitol Highway.... a name with historical significance, as I believe it used to go to Salem. It fits the code requirements in other standards, such as that it currently begins and ends within Portland. I wonder whether anyone at all who lives adjacent to that street has asked for it to be renamed. The Council seems set on not following the process in the Code for this renaming. Instead of proposing the five streets now up, the Council should direct each of the seven Neighborhood Coalitions/Districts to ask their constituent Neighborhood Associations to propose a street within their boundaries to change to Chavez Street or Avenue, and have the Coalitions/Districts pick one for forwarding to the citywide committee. The City should do more to include the Neighborhood Associations proactively, rather than reactively. And I bet asking that question would increase participation in neighborhood meetings by residents interested in both sides of the issue... and maybe even result in renaming a street with support from both the adjacent residents and businesses, and the Chavez advocacy group participants who've worked so hard on this issue.

"it's clear enough to me that the current ones have been woefully inadequate." I've been hearing that sentiment, but I'm wondering what changes to the current city code process would improve the process, especially from the perspective of those who've been trying to steer this proposal through. I'm not sure it needs changing, if it's simply followed. It seems to me that the process outlined in the current code can work, if the steps are followed in order, and the proposal doesn't touch the city council until it's vetted in the community. In my opinion, that's where things got messy with the Chávez proposal—though it politically made sense at the time to go to the council for their support (since they're the one who will ultimately vote on it), that initial council nod is what fired up neighbors who felt they hadn't had a say and it was a "done deal." I think it's true that the Chávez committee is largely following the spirit of the process by going into the community to talk to people. But there are two key parts—two bits of independent review, by historians and the planning commission—that haven't happened and don't seem like they'll happen. Those strike me as important because they lend a third-party analysis from people who aren't emotionally involved—which could be valuable to those who are emotionally involved, as they'd have a chance to hear a smart but politically neutral position. But those are my thoughts after hammering away at the process issue for so long. How could the process be improved for the future? ------------- Amy J. Ruiz News Editor Portland Mercury

Let's be clear. Even when there is a set of rules in the Code, and they are followed, if three members of the Council want to say yay or nay, that's what counts. Does anyone remember the investors of the Alexan apartments in South Waterfront complaing when their tax abatement request was denied by the Council even though they thought they'd complied with all the stipulations then in place? In this case, the Council, led by the Mayor, chose to say to the Chavez committee, "Don't worry about the process in the Code, we'll waive it. Just do A, B, and C, then we'll say Yes." So Doretta, when you say the rules are being changed on the advocates... not really, since what they were told wasn't a defined or publicly agreed set of rules anyway. The process in the Code, was only completed relatively recently. I don't know that it has ever been used. Before suggesting improvements to that process, Amy, I start from the assumption that a group of diligent citizens and staff worked hard to define and adopt it. If it hasn't been used, is that because it's not a good process, or because the Council hasn't directed any groups to try to use it? Has any group tried to use that process and stopped, and if so, why? It's very disrespectful to citizens who work for months on committees updating rules and processes if Council tells other citizens, no matter how well meaning, that the first group's adopted regulations don't matter. I don't think the Council should ask citizens to spend one minute on updating the street renaming process unless there is acknowledgement by elected officials that they are bound by the regulations adopted by previous Councils, and will not waive any process adopted for street renaming in the future. There are legal ways to do that, with Code language prohibiting exemptions and waivers. Absent a promise that the new ordinance would contain such a clause, I personally wouldn't trust my time to either the committee they're setting up this afternoon, or to another code process revision committee.

Before suggesting improvements to that process, Amy, I start from the assumption that a group of diligent citizens and staff worked hard to define and adopt it. If it hasn't been used, is that because it's not a good process, or because the Council hasn't directed any groups to try to use it? Has any group tried to use that process and stopped, and if so, why? That's my sense, that the current code-defined process would work, if city council steered people toward it instead of promising pre-emptive support. But I've heard from several commissioners and community members that the process in the code "doesn't work" and they'd like to fix it. I'm struggling to understand how someone can decide it doesn't work, if no one's ever actually followed it. (With the exception of a group who tried to rename Killingsworth for Malcolm X, and realized that the code prohibited renaming Killingsworth, which is already named for someone.) ------------- Amy J. Ruiz News Editor Portland Mercury

Well, the process in the code doesn't work, if "work" is defined as "doing what a vocal advocacy group of indeterminate size wants regardless of the desires of the neighborhood residents and businesses, subject to securing three votes on Council". If that's the standard the Council wants to make "work" for street renamings, they should repeal 17.93, and substitute the new criteria. The citizens who helped design the current code did so knowing the lessons learned from previous renamings that didn't go well. Presumably, they wanted to make sure all stakeholders can play a meaningful role, including nearby residents as well as citizens at large. It sounds like the code process worked on Killingsworth, in setting standards precluding changing a street name with "historical significance". Has anyone given details of why/how/where it didn't "work" in other proposals? It doesn't seem that arduous to me, reading it. It doesn't say 75% of the abutting property owners have to agree, it says either that or 2500 signatures from citizens at large have to support the change. That sounds doable to me.

To address a few different points made in various comments: Although this particular bit of misinformation has been spread widely in the community, this process did not go wrong because the committee went to the city council for support before they went to the community. They did, in fact, go to the community first. They went to the mayor's office initially for advice on what they needed to do to bring such a project forward. The mayor's office told them it was important to talk to the neighborhood associations and the community early on so they met with neighborhood board leadership which led to them being invited to the board meetings of all the NAs in the area to present their project and to start the discussion with them on how to interact with their general memberships. That lead to them scheduling a presence at a number of community events. They also approached other community groups before they started on the rounds with the commissioners to seek their support. I attended a couple of those early meetings as a neighborhood association officer so I know for sure they happened. After that, I was invited by the committee to join them when they went to talk to the commissioners. Sam Adams expressed his annoyance rather forcefully that as commissioner in charge of transportation he first heard about a proposal to rename a street from the community and not from the committee. The historian and planning commission reviews may or may not make sense, but that part isn't up to the people proposing the renaming, that part is up to the city. It appears to me those are intended primarily for the benefit of the commissioners who will be voting, not for the community. It's possible that whatever they might say might create more neutral ground for the community but frankly it seems more likely to me that whichever side their comments seem to favor will think they are being objective and the other side will think the whole thing was rigged--it's also entirely possible that both sides would find enough not to like that they'd both conclude the fix was in against them. On the issue of changing the process on the committee in midstream, the council are the ones making the decision. The process is legally theirs to command. (I know, Amanda, that you don't like it, but it is inaccurate to say the council is not following the law--the law allows the council to waive the code if they choose to do so.) Whether what the committee was told was public or not is not relevant to whether or not specifying a new process now amounts to pulling the rug out from under them. The question of whether or not the current process works is a little reminiscent of "if the tree falls in the forest but there's no one there to hear it...". Can a process be said to work if no one is willing to use it and council isn't willing to order it? I don't think anyone would claim that the current code is worthless. The current code sets out rules for which streets are eligible. Every street that has been renamed while that process has been on the books can reasonably be said to have met those criteria as can Interstate Avenue. The code sets out criteria for the person whose name is to be used and there seems to be no significant dispute that Cesar Chavez meets those. The commissioners have made it clear they expect proposals to meet those criteria. There has only been one exception made to any of those rules--Bill Naito had not yet been dead for five years when Front Ave was renamed. After that, the code gets very bureaucratic about official petitions from the City Engineer and such and in addition requires a signficant fee from the proposers for sending out postcards. The substance of that part of the code, apart from the fee, requires the 2500 or 75% as described in another comment, concurrence of the honorees relatives and presentation of a biography. The committee is working on all of those things--including the petition signatures--so they obviously agree with Amanda that those don't seem too odious. One of the things I would advise changing about the process is the fee requirement. It strikes me as the equivalent of a poll tax--I don't know whether it was intended as a way to discourage people/communities of limited means but that seems to me to be the effect. Amanda, in addition to being rather snarkier than your usual tone, you definition of "works" is a ludicrous straw man. I propose the following alternative: the process works if it isn't so laden in red tape or expense that a reasonable group of citizens will be both willing and able to use it to make their case to the council.

Thank you for taking the time to post this information, Doretta, some of which I didn't know. (I know, Amanda, that you don't like it, but it is inaccurate to say the council is not following the law--the law allows the council to waive the code if they choose to do so.) Whether what the committee was told was public or not is not relevant to whether or not specifying a new process now amounts to pulling the rug out from under them. Waiving the code is a legal process that requires a vote of the Council. They shouldn't be ignoring it then at the end passing the ordinance to waive it. Given the discontent over the process for renaming Rosa Parks Boulevard, I believe the Council should have held a hearing and voted to waive 17.93 at the start of the process, rather than telling the committee they intended to do it at the end. Since the process matters, and was developed precisely to avoid this kind of citizen-against-citizen mess, a formal vote to waive it should have been proposed up front. The processing fee is presumably intended to cover the City's staff costs in working on it. I agree there is public benefit in having these discussions and therefore the General Fund could bear more of the burden. Public information and participation is a civic value worth paying for. In this particular case, there could have been a partnership with the process considering rezoning Interstate, which has also suffered from lack of notice to adjacent residents and businesses. Although, if there are 2500 people supporting the name change, as required by the process, asking each of them to donate $1 to help with the fee doesn't seem excessive, and in fact may make them feel more invested in and responsible for the change. I'd want to know what the total estimated cost to the petitioners will be (the Code says $1000 minimum for a street of this length, if I'm reading it correctly with my sleep-deprived brain) in order to give an opinion on whether it's excessive or not.

Bonny McKnight I think the core of what is shown by this sorry incident is what process is intended to do - keep anger under wraps; actually get people to hear each other rather than sit through meetings; inform policy makers of all the options and ideas which should be considered during final decision making; and give adequate visibility and time to provide an opportunity for anyone to be involved. Good process can sometimes be slow and it is, but at the end you may not have to start over or leave a residue of who won and who lost. Thanks, Amanda, for understanding that process, when used correclty, gets it done right the first time and doesn't waste already scarce financial and political capital that is hard to replace. If the process is wrong, change it..

Work, rules, meetings, agendas...more meetings, but it boils down to this Amanda....THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID NO! The taxpayers, those that pay the bills, said no! If you think you want to be an elected offical, learn the basics of a simple no from your fellow PDXERS, or don't run for the job.

Guess I WILL not vote for you based on your reaction to the word NO!

Thanks for joining the discussion, FRD. Let me be sure I'm understanding what you wrote: You're dissing me because I agree with you that Interstate should not be renamed as a result of this process, but you consider I came to that conclusion for the wrong reasons?

Amanda, "We messed up. There is a process in the Code for how city streets are to be renamed. We realize we should abide by the law. We're going to." I admire the courage it takes for any politician to eat crow. Do you think council is currently over-influenced by strident male egos? How would you go about challenging this kind of behavior in office? Matt

There has only been one exception made to any of those rules--Bill Naito had not yet been dead for five years when Front Ave was renamed. That was a major exception when Portland Boulevard was renamed for Rosa Parks—the rename was voted through on the 1st anniversary of her death. ------------- Amy J. Ruiz News Editor Portland Mercury

Do you think council is currently over-influenced by strident male egos? How would you go about challenging this kind of behavior in office? Matt, I've learned from 25 years in nursing and 20 years in citizen involvement in Portland, that challenging egos (male or female) doesn't usually help accomplish a goal. Public criticism doesn't, either. Whether I'm elected or not, I will continue to do what's produced the results I've worked for in City of Portland issues for two decades. Do the homework, know the facts, respect the process, listen to and consider the views of other participants, and look for ways to maximize the long term public good as well as achieve short-term goals. I think we all want open public process, however if that means the Mayor having a melt-down in Council chambers, clearly insufficient groundwork has been done beforehand. Check Testimony Tips (link also found in the left sidebar favorites) for my summary on effective preparation and hearing behavior by citizens, staff, and elected officials. I wrote it soon after leaving the Planning Commission at the end of 2003, but its suggestions are still valid.