4 PM Gresham Charter Review Meeting. Third Floor City Hall!

1. Citizen Testimony to GCRC
Richard Strathern
October 27, Meeting

2. Evaluate Current CRC Work Process
• The Charter Review Committee is now far enough into
its work schedule to review its process to date for
completeness of process design and implementation
– Key questions:
1. 1. Are we organized for best practices research and benchmarking
completeness?
2. 2. Is our planned outreach to citizen base and stakeholders
community proving effective?
3. 3. Will our planned tentative decision making process include
citizen feedback prior to final recommendation to City Council?
Evaluation CRC Process 2

3. Suggested Focus Areas for Inclusion
• By priority
– Government Structure-Review Strong Mayor Council
vs. Weak Mayor Council
– Eliminate 60% super majority vote to change city
charter by electorate and return to 50% requirement
– District Elections of City Council and Election at Large
for Mayor and Council President (see mixed model
handout)
– Election of City Auditor
– Term Limits
– Citizen e-engagement via city website forums to
increase democratic involvement
Evaluation CRC Process 3

4. Mayor’s Role in City over 100,000
• Should the Mayor Sit and Vote as a Member of
the City Council?
• Should the Mayor have Veto Power?
• Who Should Appoint/Remove City Charter
Officers?
• Who Should Appoint/Remove The City Manager?
• Who Should Appoint/Remove City Employees?
• Budget Authority?
• Should there be Term Limits for Mayor and City
Council?
Evaluation CRC Process 4

5. Risks?
• Risks
– Will inadequate citizen engagement in eight year review
process lead to city’s inability to adapt and change where
needed?
– Will inadequate stakeholder involvement strengthen
perception that the City Charter is an unimportant
document failing to empower community resources for
public good?
– Might inadequate direction from City Council as it relates
to their concerns and issues as feedback to CRC verify to
the general public that our public servants are more
committed to serving the “special interest community”
over citizen interests?
Evaluation CRC Process 5

6. Conclusion
• The Committee has been appointed by the City
Council to review the City’s current charter and
make recommendations to the City Charter for
updating and improving the constitutional basis
for effective governance
• It is not too late for the CRC to demonstrate
accountability and responsibility by revising the
review process to insure adequate citizen and
stakeholder involvement through education,
information and the solicitation of feedback prior
to final recommendations to City Council.
Evaluation CRC Process 6