Well, that was entertaining! About 100 people attended, although the audience dwindled to about half that by the end. The Mayor didn't mention the Water bureau, and Randy didn't say "ain't broken" in so many words. Randy said "flexibility" more than Mayor, which now I think about it fits the Commission form better. The most contentious part was when the Mayor said the tram cost overruns would not have happened under the new form, and Randy responded that they wouldn't have happened last year if the Mayor had not gathered three votes to pay the extra. Neither of them made the real point, which was that three votes including Mayor Katz decided not to do the cost analysis recommended by the Planning Commission, before voting on the policy of doing the tram. On both policy and budget grounds, Mayor Potter's arguments are flawed in citing the tram as an example of something the new structure would fix. Mayor Potter said he was only prepared to talk about 26-91, and wouldn't answer a question on the Civil Service. More on that tomorrow.

The most contentious part was when the Mayor said the tram cost overruns would not have happened under the new form.... Yo, local press peeps. When the bloody Hell are you going to ask Major Tom why he keeps doing this after announcing we shouldn't be making the tram a political issue during the Charter campaign? Just. Freaking. Call. Him. On. It. It's no wonder the man has a 70% approval rating when you people won't call him on his lying hypocritical BS.

I think we saw tonight why he has a 70% approval rating. He's a nice man. He realizes most people don't have much of an understanding of many things in city government, and goes with "trust me, this is for the best". People like to trust nice people. Btw, b!X, I know it's frustrating, but I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid phrases like "lying hypocritical BS" in comments here. You're welcome to link to your blog to expand on your points in comments.

Your blog, your rules. But it's the truth of it. There's really not a nice way to point it out. And you know what? Nice men don't pervert the public discussion of one of the single most important decisions the residents of a city can make, and do it safe and secure in the knowledge that the press won't bother to tell anyone he's doing it. That's not nice. If he were a Republican, the nice little liberal people of Portland would eat him alive for it. But he's old and folksy, so la-de-da, all. La-de-da.

theonetruebix Your blog, your rules. JK: Nice statement of basic property rights. In this case though, I think the public need for a completely free discussion on this crucially important matter outweighs the individual’s property right and we should be free to post anything that we want. (Think of it like the importance of preserving open spaces is so important, we tell landowners that they cannot develop their property) This is simply a case of the needs of the many over-riding the wants of the few. Thanks JK

Please, can anyone explain why all of the 'inefficiencies, redundacies, duplicate services" cannot be resolved under the current system of government? I am not saying 'it ain't broke'-I am suggesting we can fix the current system of city government. If we get a new system-won't it have it's own set of plumbing problems? How can we change what we have when we haven't even tried to fix it? Why can't the Mayor end the '300' different computer systems? Why can't the Bureaus communicate now? If the Mayor couldn't speak to the entire charter package, why are we changing everything? What's the hurry? Oh, and when anyone at City Hall uses the word "access", they don't mean you and me. They choose who they see and talk to. It 'aint' us. Give me a Bureau staff person anytime, they listen and understand. They return my phone calls, answer my e-mails and speak at my meetings. They have respect for my time and effort. Commissioners come and go at Bureaus, staff are with us in the trenches. They are not about politics, and deserve fair treatment in their employment. No wonder the Mayor did not want to speak to this charter change. Alesia J. Reese

Interesting twist, Jim. I'm tempted to veer off into a discussion of property rights and Internet issues, but we all need to focus on these measures. One reason I don't want personal attacks here is that the measures aren't about Tom Potter, even though part of his campaign message seems to be, "I'm a nice man, trust me, this is for the best". Randy Leonard got it exactly right last night, I think, in saying many times, things like, "I completely respect the Mayor", and "I don't believe for a minute Tom Potter would use the Civil Service changes to fire many layers of staff and put his own people in the bureaus". Because he went on to say, "This isn't about Tom Potter. Sooner or later, some Mayor will abuse the system if these changes are adopted", or something like that. I'm all for a free discussion of the issues. Discussing the man leading the charge for it is counter-productive, in my opinion, mostly because it distracts from the issues. I appreciate b!X pointing out the disconnect between the Mayor's different statements on the tram. The tram isn't relevant to this debate, and I think the only reason the proponents bring it up is because polling shows its cost is considered outrageous. But that's the issue, not turning the debate into a discussion of the merits/demerits of our current Mayor. Alesia, I agree with you. I'll be posting more on the Civil Service measure very soon.

Amanda’s quote: "This isn't about Tom Potter. Sooner or later, some Mayor will abuse the system if these changes are adopted", or something like that. JK: Right on. I am constantly amazed by both side’s blindness on this sort of thing. The Rs want to give Bush more power, ignoring that the next prez may be a D. We saw the same from the Ds during Clinton. Amanda’s quote: The tram isn't relevant to this debate, and I think the only reason the proponents bring it up is because polling shows its cost is considered outrageous. JK: It was brought up an example of something that would not have happened with the proposed new system. Fat chance - it would have been more likely. I wonder if most of our problems could be solved by simply shutting the PDC down. Thanks JK