It’s just the one thing I object to, Commissioner Adams!
This is taken from Sam’s decision on the Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund.
Taken individually and together as one package, my concerns about the proposed
reforms include lack of sufficient public discussion, inadequate analysis of impacts,
possible unintended future political challenges, that the amendments do not go far
enough in terms of needed reform, and that the amendments could circumvent the
independent review committee that was appointed to make comprehensive
recommendations to City Council.
(Emphasis mine)
It’s just that bit I object to! There are times when it is appropriate for public discussion, and there are times where the commissioners should say that this is how it is going to be!
Quite frankly, I feel that there is a trend in the Portland community towards government by committee. While there is nothing wrong with this approach in theory (except for the whiff of commiescommiesCOMMIES), the people of Portland elect the commissioners to make decisions. Sam Adams is basically saying that he refuses to consider this because the public hasn’t debated it enough.
The whole of Sam’s memo on the FPD ‘n’ R issue is sound. I agree to most of what he says. Sure, it has to be bullet-proof. Sure, we need bona-fide financial reviews of the effects of the legislation.
But it is up to Sam and the Commissioners to determine what is best for Portland in this situation. Otherwise we have 8 hours a day of hearings of people saying that we need to leave it alone because to do otherwise would destroy the hopes future and present firefighters and officers have for retirement and disability. It is up to the five elected officials to make a decision, write the proposal, and then hand it to the voters.
Edited to fix broken link tag. Why do I forget my bloody /a’s? weird.
Related posts:
Which bargain unit representative will cover a disabled firefighter that is compelled to work in a position not covered by the Portland Firefighters Association?
I don’t think that the political agreement of the firefigters association covers all the labor related issues.
This is not a “public discussion” issue but is an issue that is troubling to me.
Dude, I have no idea. It’s up to the commissioners to make that kind of decision, not the community, though.
The more important part is that the Council itself created a process for reviewing the entire system. If some Commissioners now want to do an end-run around that process, someone should ask them why they created it in the first place.
Oh, hey. I’m just irked because Sam’s putting everything under public control when there are certain things you should take responsibility of, as an elected official of the city.
I’m not badmouthing Leonard, because that’s too easy. No, I’m taking after an elected official I think is doing a good job for something that I personally believe is a bad idea.
Benkay,
Earlier in Commissioner Adams’s memo, he states how difficult his decision was because he wants “to persue FPD&R reforms as soon as possible”. Sam is a stong supporter of public process; however, his memo indicates that that deciding factor was that there was not enough financial anyalsis completed proving the benefits of moving forward with reforms at this time.
Mary Jo,
I’m nitpicking. I found something I disagree with, and I’m bringing that into a public forum. I never implied that Sam was saying no for any other reason than those in his memo (and I did read it, believe it or not), I’m just objecting to a specific phrase. A specific phrase that I think represents a negative trend.
Yes, it’s important to elect leaders who
will have the agendas which you wish to
see pursued in your city.
Although, all in all, portland is a really well
governed city… it has a strong vision for itself.
Good, but divided. Consensus is nearly impossible to achieve in this city.
You wouldn’t know how beautiful you have it in
Portland, Oregon. An ethic in government of
achieving consensus, is an exceedingly important
check on misguided governmental agendas.
I live in a small tourist town, and ideas of the
importance of “public input” and “acheiving
consensus” are the bargaining chips with which
community groups work to effect important and
progressive changes to their community.
Does that justify complacency? Because our government is so easily changed by the citizens is the precise reason we must constantly be willing to step in, or launch a criticism, or form an interest group. Because we know it will matter.
I lived in Western Oregon for several years, and I
found that people there are very preoccupied with
politics. Because of this, they have some of the
highest caliber politicians in the nation. But
individual citizens also get very worn out with
their worry and toil over the political events.
Do you know why Bush was elected again by the
central USA states? Because most places in the
nation, people come together for an evening of
caucuses every two years - and that’s the extent
of their political action. They have not educated
themselves. So they make very unwise decisions
when they vote.
If you want to be able to relax and let someone
else forge their agendas who has taken political office,
that’s wonderful… But make sure you elect people
who’s agendas are very clear, and are of a nature
which you think honourable.