The commission’s final proposal was far from the narrowly tailored fix many had envisioned.
“In recent years Portland has become a petri dish for philosophical experiments,” said Vadim Mozyrsky, one of the three members of the commission who voted against the proposed measure and now among its most outspoken opponents. “This is just the latest example.”

Proponents of Portland’s charter reform proposal (Measure 26-228) try to make it sound so simple and straightforward; just a good government initiative that will transform the city.

Not so. The proposed radical change in how city officials would be elected is a convoluted jumble that few probably comprehend.

“Let’s kill this measure and support reform that focuses on service delivery and accountability. Let’s make Portland once again ‘The City that Works.’”

The alternate package would scrap Portland’s odd commission form of government and create single member election districts,

His resignation followed the news that a public opinion poll conducted in the spring, unseen by Mozyrsky and many of his colleagues, showed that 72% of polled voters wanted to break the reforms into separate measures.

A poll showing 72% of respondents preferred to vote on separate ballot measures rather than an all-or-nothing reform measure was hidden by Charter Commission ally.

“Instead of creating narrow single-member districts aligned as much as possible with identifiable communities, the commission proposes dividing the city into four large districts with three representatives from each quadrant to comprise a 12-member legislative body. Such a decision disregards Portland’s strength – the vitality and vibrancy of its diverse neighborhoods.”

“And I am troubled by the concept that the Charter Commission can’t trust the voters to choose between the three ideas and find our own version of the way we want our city to be run.”

Partnership for Common Sense Government says the package is extreme, confusing, and costs way too much money.

“I’m very concerned about the election form that’s been chosen because multi-member districts coupled with ranked choice voting is an untested system in the United States.”

“I have served on a Charter Review Commission, in Sacramento. I then served eight years on the Sacramento City Council and led the successful campaign to change from at-large to district elections. I have volunteered my experience to the Portland commission, but my offer was ignored.”

“There is no jurisdiction in the entire U.S. that uses the scheme the Charter Commission is considering. Mostly, the whole proposal is quite complicated and will be very hard to explain to Portland voters, which alone can be the kiss of death to charter amendments.’